Medical Privacy |

OCR Nails Second HIPAA Covered For Allowing Ransomware Breach

February 23, 2024

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) that fail to appropriately safeguard their protected health information and systems against randomware and other malware threats as required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) should expect to pay hefty amounts to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) if an attack occurs. That is the clear message sent by OCR’s February 22, 2022 announcement of its second ransomware settlement since October, 2023.

Duty To Guard Against Malware

OCR enforces the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules, which sets forth the requirements that HIPAA covered entities (most health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses) and their business associates must follow to protect the privacy and security of protected health information.

Ransomware and hacking are the primary cyber-threats in health care. A type of malware (malicious software) designed to deny access to a user’s data, usually by encrypting the data with a key known only to the hacker who deployed the malware, until a ransom is paid, OCR has seen large breaches affecting more than 500 individuals reported to OCR involving hacking increase 256% and those from ransomware increase 264% increase over the past five years,

In 2023, hacking accounted for 79% of the large breaches reported to OCR. The large breaches reported in 2023 affected over 134 million individuals, a 141% increase from 2022.

In light of the growing threat, OCR is prioritizing enforcement, education and compliance outreach to HIPAA covered entities.

OCR’s February 22, 2024 announcement of its second ever and second settlement of a malware related enforcement action in less than five months demonstrates OCR’s readiness to hold covered entities accountable for failing to fulfill this responsibility.

Green Ridge Ransomeware Breach

OCR’s February 22, 2022 announcement of its second ever ransomware related resolution agreement and corrective action plan reaffirms OCR’s readiness to hold covered entities accountable for failing to guard against ransomware and other cyber risks.

Green Ridge Behavioral Health, LLC, (Green Ridge), a Maryland-based practice that provides psychiatric evaluations, medication management, and psychotherapy. This marks the second settlement that OCR has reached with a HIPAA regulated entity for potential violations identified during an investigation following a ransomware attack.

The settlement resolves an investigation following a ransomware attack that affected the protected health information of more than 14,000 individuals.

OCR learned of the breach after Green Ridge filed a breach report with OCR in February 2019 that stated that its network server had been infected with ransomware resulting in the encryption of company files and the electronic health records of all patients.

In keeping with its policy of investigating all breaches affecting more that 500 individuals (large breaches), OCR opened an investigation in April, 2019.

OCR’s investigation of the breach found evidence of potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules leading up to and at the time of the breach. Other findings included that Green Ridge Behavioral Health failed to:

Have in place an accurate and through analysis to determine the potential risks and vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information;
Implement security measures to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; and
Have sufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack.

Under the terms of the settlement, Green Ridge agreed to pay $40,000 and implement a corrective action plan that will be monitored by OCR for three years to avoid exposure to potentially much greater HIPAA monetary penalties.

The plan also requires Green Ridge to take many actions to resolve potential HIPAA violations and to protect electronic protected health information, including:

Conducting a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information;
Designing a Risk Management Plan to address and mitigate security risks and vulnerabilities found in the Risk Analysis;
Reviewing, and as necessary, developing, or revising its written policies and procedures to comply with the HIPAA Rules;
Providing workforce training on HIPAA policies and procedures;
Conducting an audit of all third-party arrangements to ensure appropriate business associate agreements are in place, where applicable; and
Reporting to OCR when workforce members fail to comply with HIPAA.

First Malware Settlement

Prior to this week’s announcement of the Green Ridge resolution agreement, OCR already had announced its first ever malware related resolution agreement on October 31, 2023.

That $100,000 settlement resolved a potentially much greater HIPAA liability business associate Doctors’ Management Services (DMS) could have faced for alleged HIPAA violations OCR found investigating a large breach report DMS filed on April 22, 2019.

The DMS breach report disclosed that a ransomware attack affected DMS’ network server with GandCrab ransomware beginning with an initial unauthorized access to the network that occurred on April 1, 2017; however, DMS did not detect the intrusion until December 24, 2018, Once the DNS system was accessed, ransomware was used to encrypt their files. The attack affected the electronic protected health information of 206,695 individuals

OCR’s investigation of the DNS breach found evidence of potential failures by DMS to have in place an analysis to determine the potential risks and vulnerabilities to electronic protected health information across the organization. Other findings included insufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack, and a lack of policies and procedures in place to implement the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information.

Under the terms of the DMS settlement agreement paid $100,000 to OCR and agreed to implement a corrective action plan that requires:

DMS to submit to OCR monitoring for three years to ensure compliance with HIPAA
Review and update its Risk Analysis to identify the potential risks and vulnerabilities to Doctor’s Management Services data to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information.
Update its enterprise-wide Risk Management Plan (strategy to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI) to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities found in the updated Risk Analysis.
Review and revise, if necessary, its written policies and procedures to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules.
Provide workforce training on HIPAA policies and procedures.

Warning To All Covered Entities

Along with announcing the two recent resolution agreements, OCR also is warning all covered entities to tighten their malware and ransomware safeguards.

OCR’s announcement of the Green Ridge resolution agreement, for instance, quotes OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer as stating, “Health care providers need to understand the seriousness of these attacks and must have practices in place to ensure patients’ protected health information is not subjected to cyber-attacks such as ransomware.”

To assist covered entities to meet this responsibility, OCR has developed Fact Sheet guidance that recommends covered entities to take at least the following steps to guard against breaches from ransomware and other malware attacks:

Review all vendor and contractor relationships to ensure business associate agreements are in place as appropriate and address breach/security incident obligations.
Risk analysis and risk management should be integrated into business processes; conducted regularly and when new technologies and business operations are planned.
Ensure audit controls are in place to record and examine information system activity.
Implement regular review of information system activity.
Utilize multi-factor authentication to ensure only authorized users are accessing ePHI.
Encrypt ePHI to guard against unauthorized access to ePHI.
Incorporate lessons learned from incidents into the overall security management process.
Provide training specific to organization and job responsibilities and on regular basis; reinforce workforce members’ critical role in protecting privacy and security.
two recent resolutions agreements and other guidance and enforcement actions make clear that all covered entities should ensure their ability to demonstrate their completion of these and other actions a risk analysis shows are needed to defend against a ransomware or other malware threats. This guidance also alerts covered entities to stay vigilant and update risk assessments and safeguards in response as to evolving threats.

Covered entities should not assume the relatively modest settlement amounts collected in the two new ransomware settlements compared to exponentially greater resolution settlements like the $4.75 million settlement payment New York based Montefiore Medical Center made last year reflect greater tolerance for ransomware related threats versus internal or external hacking. To the contrary, the Montefiore Medical Center resolution makes clear the randomware threat is one of a multitude of internal and external threats covered entities must defend their protected health information against to comply with HIPAA.

Moreover, covered entities and their leaders also should take steps to understand and fully address all other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by HIPAA. For example, health care providers, health plans and their fiduciaries, brokers, administrators and insurers also may bear responsibilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act fiduciary responsibility rules, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, federal and state electronic crimes, privacy data security, artificial intelligence, workforce, tax, and other laws.

Publicly traded organizations and their leaders also may face responsibilities and liability under new Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, clawback rules and other laws arising from the occurrence or bungled response to a breach.

Likewise, got businesses sponsoring or administering employment-based health plans, Employee Benefit Security Administration considers managing cybersecurity risks a part of the fiduciary obligations of fiduciaries of employment-based health plans. Meanwhile, health care providers, insurance organizations and brokers, third party administrators, government contractors, attorneys and other advisors and others also may be subject to medical confidentiality and other data privacy and security obligations under federal and state electronic crimes, identity theft, ethics, professional licensure, contractual, common law privacy and other statutory and common laws. Since HIPAA and many of these other laws involve potential criminal as well as civil liability, organizations and leaders in covered entities generally should ensure their HIPAA and other cybersecurity compliance efforts are included in and administered according to their Federal Sentencing Guidelines Compliance program.

While it commonly is necessary or advisable to involve consulting or other technical support in the conduct of these activities, HIPAA entities should keep in mind the likelihood that their analysis and review is likely to uncover and prompt discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information. For this reason, HIPAA entities and their leaders generally will want to engage experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

In planning for an implementing these procedures, Covered Entities also are reminded that the effectiveness of these efforts requires that the Covered Entities incorporate appropriate processes and policies for monitoring and investigating compliance with the policies and procedures implemented to comply with HIPAA. Conducting this monitoring and investigation by necessity is likely to involve surveillance, investigation and cooperation of employees, contractors, vendors and others for which Fair Credit Reporting Act background check notification and consent and other procedures are necessary or advisable.

Finally, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that HIPAA and other cybersecurity compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, HIPAA entities should both monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

For More Informational

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Meeting with the HHS Office of Civil Rights, her experience includes extensive involvement throughout her career in advising health care and life sciences and other clients about preventing, investigating and defending EEOC, DOJ, OFCCP and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other HHS, HUD, banking, and other federal and state discrimination investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Leave a Comment » | business associate, data breach, data security, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, long-term care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, NIST, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Pharmacy, Physician, primary care, Self-Insured Group health Plans, Telemedicine | Tagged: Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Provider, Health Plans, Health Policy, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Hospitals, Medical Privacy, OCR, pharmacy, PHI, Physician, Privacy, Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

New OCR/St. Joseph’s Medical Center Settlement Highlights HIPAA-Covered Entities’ Duty To Prevent Unauthorized PHI Access and Disclosure To Media & Other Third-Parties

November 21, 2023

A newly-announced settlement agreement and corrective action plan (the “Settlement”) between a prominent New York academic medical center and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) arising from disclosures and access allowed a reporter covering the COVID-19 pandemic warns health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses (“covered entities”), their business associates and workforce members (collectively, “HIPAA entities”) to prevent their organizations and workforce members not to share protected health information (“PHI”) or allow reporters or other media to access patients or PHI without first obtaining the legally required patient authorizations as well as evaluate their own organization’s potential exposure to OCR enforcement from known or suspected unauthorized disclosures of PHI by their own organizations or workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic or other events over the past two years.

HIPAA-Compliant Authorization Required Before Media Access To Patients Or Patient Information

The HIPAA Privacy Rule prohibits SJMC and other HIPAA entities from disclosing any patient’s PHI unless::

The individual who is the subject of the information (or the individual’s personal representative) authorizes the disclosure in writing in the form required by the Privacy Rule; or
The Privacy Rule otherwise expressly permits or requires the disclosure.

OCR guidance makes clear that these prohibitions continue to apply when health care providers or other HIPAA entities are dealing with have print, television, or other media reporters.

SJMC Settlement

The Settlement between OCR and St. Joseph’s Medical Center (“SJMC”) resolves potential OCR charges that SJMC violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule by allowing an Associated Press (“AP”) reporter to access, photograph, and review clinical information of three COVID-19 patients without appropriate HIPAA authorization. Although the dated documents governing the Settlement reflect the parties reached the Settlement Agreement in August, OCR only made the Settlement public on November 20, 2023.

The OCR investigation that prompted the settlement began shortly an AP article about SJMC’s response to the COVID-19 public health emergency containing photographs and information about three COVID-19 patients came to OCR’s attention. The nationally distributed article included pictures of the three patients as well as details about the patients’ COVID-19 diagnoses, current medical statuses and medical prognoses, vital signs, treatment plans, and other PHI.

OCR determined from the investigation that SJMC allowed the AP reporter to observe and access clinical information of three patients receiving treatment for COVID on April 20, 2020 without first obtaining the necessary patient authorization required by HIPAA and that the disclosures were not otherwise allowed by any other exception to the Privacy Rule.

To avoid potentially much larger civil monetary penalties authorized by HIPAA, SHMC entered into the Settlement under which it agreed to pay $80,000 to OCR and agreed to develop written policies and procedures and train its workforce to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Under the Settlement, OCR also will monitor SHMC’s HIPAA compliance for two years.

Prior OCR Enforcement & Guidance Warned HIPAA Entities About Media Disclosures

OCR guidance and enforcement actions alerted SJMC and other HIPAA entities of their HIPAA responsibility not to disclose or allow access by the media or other third parties long before SJMC allowed the media access and disclosures that resulted in the new Settlement.

2013 Shasta Regional Medical Center Enforcement

Shasta Regional Medical Center (“SRMC”) holds the distinction of being the first covered entity punished for wrongfully disclosing PHI to the media. Under a resolution agreement OCR announced on June 14, 2013, OCR required SRMC to pay OCR $275,000 and implement a series of corrective actions for using and disclosing to the media PHI of a patient while trying to perform public relations damage control against accusations reported in the media that SRMC had engaged in fraud or other misconduct when dealing with the patient. That SRMC resolution Agreement followed an OCR investigating a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article report that two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

2016 NY-Presby Resolution Agreement & OCR Media Guidance

OCR’s next warnings to covered entities about their HIPAA responsibilities when dealing with the media came in 2016, when OCR concurrently announced a $2.2 million settlement with New York-Presbyterian Hospital and published its 2016 Frequently Asked Question (“Media FAQ”) addressing the obligation to comply with HI)PAA when dealing with the media.

According to the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement, OCR’s investigation revealed that NY-Presbyterian “blatantly” violated HIPAA when it allowed ABC film crews and staff virtually unfettered access to its health care facility. OCR says the access NY-Presbyterian allowed ABC effectively created an environment where patients PHI could not be protected from impermissible disclosure to the ABC film crew and staff filming the episode. While the Resolution Agreement reflects allowing the filming and other access to ABC without prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from patients in the facility itself violated HIPAA, OCR also particularly found “egregious” the facility allowing ABC film crews and staff to film a dying patient and another patient in significant distress without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each of those patients and even more so that NY-Presbyterian failed stop the filming even after a medical professional urged the crew to stop.

Based on its investigation, OCR charged NY-Presbyterian with violating 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(a) and 164.530(c) by:

Impermissibly disclosing the PHI of two identified patients to the film crew and other staff of “NY Med;”
Failing appropriately and reasonably to safeguard its patients’ PHI from disclosure during the filming of “NY Med” on its premises; and
Failing to implement policies, procedures, and practices to protect the privacy of the filming of the television show.

OCR collected $2.2 million from New York-Presbyterian Hospital as the required settlement payment under that resolution agreement.

2016 Media FAQ Guidance

Coincident with its announcement of the NYPH Settlement, OCR published the 2016 Media FAQ addressing HIPAA entities’ responsibilities when dealing with the media that outlined its interpretation of HIPAA as requiring HIPAA entities to protect patients and their PHI against unauthorized filming, photography, observation, and other access by news or other media or even other staff, patients or visitors.

Among other things, the Media FAQ states that HIPAA prohibits health care providers and other HIPAA entities from inviting or allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form, or otherwise making PHI accessible to the media without prior written authorization from each patient or other subject of the PHI who is or will be in the area or whose PHI otherwise will be accessible to the media except in a very limited set of circumstances set forth in the Media FAQ.

The Media FAQ also states, “It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixelation, or voice alteration software) for whom authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patient’s PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the Media FAQ states that a health care provider also must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which authorization has not been obtained.

Concerning the limited circumstances when a health care provider or other HIPAA entity or business associate may disclose to the media or allow unconsented filming, photographing or use of PHI to the media or other film crews, the Media FAQ also clarifies that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility.

In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other HIPAA entity may:

Disclose limited PHI about the incapacitated patient to the media in accordance with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii) when, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest; or
Disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name as specified in 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a).

The Media FAQ also discusses circumstances where a healthcare provider or other HIPAA entity may use the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if the provider ensures that the film crew acting as a business associate enters into a HIPAA compliant business associate agreement with the HIPAA entity which among other things ensures that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed as required by 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). The Media FAQ also states that as a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, the Media FAQ reminds HIPAA entities and business associates of the need to obtain prior authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials before any of those materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated.

Finally, the Media FAQ states HIPAA entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the covered entity does not share PHI with the media.

Memorial Herrman Health System Resolution Agreement

OCR’s next media coverage-related enforcement action involved the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS). The 2017 MHHS Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan resulted from HHHS issuing a press release with the name and other PHI about a patient arrested and charged with fraudulently obtaining health care by presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to MHHS office staff without first obtaining authorization from the patient. MHHS paid OCR a $2.4 million resolution payment as well as agreed to implement a detailed corrective action plan. See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.

Three Resolution Agreements Following Disclosures ForBoston Trauma Reality Series

OCR followed up the next year with a concurrent announcement of resolution agreements against three unrelated hospitals for allowing ABC film crews to film in patient treatment and other areas for the ABC medical documentary “Save My Life: Boston Trauma” series. Under three separate settlement agreements, OCR collected a total of $999,000 from Boston Medical Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Massachusetts General Hospital for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three separate settlement agreements with the hospitals.

The circumstances that resulted in the three resolution agreements announced on September 20, 2018 were strikingly similar to those underlying the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement. Notably, the investigations that resulted in the three settlement agreements all arose out of each of the respective hospital’s permitting an ABC documentary film crew filming a medical documentary to access patient areas of their hospitals.

OCR’s investigation of MGH arose in response to an announcement about the impending filming on its website while OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH started in response to a January 12, 2015 Boston Globe article that reported the Hospitals each separately had allowed ABC film crews filming a documentary to access PHI and film patients without obtaining patient authorization. See Boston Medical Center Resolution Agreement (BMC Settlement Agreement); Brigham and Women’s Hospital Resolution Agreement (BWH Settlement Agreement); and Massachusetts General Hospital Resolution Agreement (MGH Resolution Agreement)

The MGH Resolution Agreement reflects that OCR’s investigations began with an investigation of MGH on December 17, 2014 based on a news story posted to MGH’s website on October 3, 2014, indicating that ABC News would be filming a medical documentary program at MGH. The MGH Resolution Reports that the investigation revealed that before allowing the filming between October 2014 to January 2015, MGH reviewed and assessed patient privacy issues related to the filming and implemented various protections regarding patient privacy, including providing the ABC film crew with the same HIPAA privacy training received by MGH’s workforce.

Information contained in the respective settlement agreements reflect that OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH began about a month later on January 25 and 26, 2015 respectively in response to the Boston Globe article. The BWH Settlement Agreement states that the BWH investigation revealed that like MGH, BWH reviewed and assessed patient privacy issues related to the filming and implemented various protections regarding patient privacy, including providing the ABC film crew with the same HIPAA privacy training received by BWH’s workforce before allowing the filming by the ABC film crew that occurred between October 2014 to January 2015. The BMC Settlement Agreement does not state that OCR found BMC engaged in similar deliberations or undertook the same or other efforts to safeguard patients and their PHI.

The BMC Settlement Agreement reports that the OCR concluded based on the BMC investigation showed that BMC impermissibly disclosed PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BMC in violation of HIPAA. Meanwhile, while acknowledging the privacy deliberations and efforts undertaken at MGH and BWH, OCR also concluded that each of those organizations also violated HIPAA because in allowing the film crew access and to film patients and patient areas:

The timing at which they obtained patient authorizations showed MGH and BWH impermissibly disclosed the PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BWH; and
Despite the various patient privacy protections in place, MGH and BWH failed to safeguard its patients’ PHI appropriately and reasonably from disclosure during a filming project conducted by ABC on its premises in 2014 and January 2015.

To resolve potential HIPAA violations, BMC has paid OCR $100,000, BWH has paid OCR $384,000, and MGH has paid OCR $515,000. In addition, each Hospital agreed to provide workforce training as part of a corrective action plan that will include OCR’s guidance on disclosures to film and media in the 2016 Media FAQ.

Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. Resolution Agreement

Large institutional health care organizations are not the only HIPAA entities subjected to OCR investigation or enforcement for inappropriate sharing of PHI with the media. In its November 2018

On November 26, 2018, OCR announced that Allergy Associates, the three doctor health care practice Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. would pay OCR $125,000 and take corrective action under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan resolving charges stemming from comments a physician made to a reporter on a patient dispute with the practice in 2015 violated HIPAA.

According to OCR, the disclosure of patient information that prompted OCR’s HIPAA charges resulted from a physician associated with the practice commenting to a local television station reporter for a story about a disabled patient’s complaint to the station that Allergy Associates turned her away from a scheduled appointment because of her use of a service animal. After the patient contacted the television statement to complain about being turned away by the practice when accompanied by her service animal, the station contacted the doctor for comment about the dispute between the Allergy Associates’ doctor and the patient. Although OCR reports its investigation revealed that Allergy Associates’ Privacy Officer instructed the doctor to either not respond to the media or respond with “no comment,” the doctor nevertheless accepted the television station reporter’s invitation to comment and discussed the dispute with the reporter.

OCR learned of the physician’s unauthorized comments to the reporter when it received a copy of an October 6, 2015, HHS civil rights complaint filed on behalf of the patient with the Department of Justice, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney’s Office (DOJ) by the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA). In response to this complaint, OCR initiated a joint investigation with DOJ into the civil rights allegations against Allergy Associates. The complaint also alleged that Allergy Associates impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI in violation of HIPAA.

OCR found the physician’s discussion of the patient’s complaint without first obtaining a HIPAA-complaint authorization from the patient both violated HIPAA and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the patient’s HIPAA privacy rights. Additionally, Resolution Agreement also states that OCR’s investigation revealed that Allergy Associates did not take any disciplinary or other corrective action against the doctor after learning of his impermissible disclosure to the media.

To resolve the HIPAA charges, Allergy Associates agrees in the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan to pay $125,000 as well as to undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Guidance & Warnings About Media-Related HIPAA Responsibilities

With the COVID-19 pandemic fueling a torrent of media inquiries and coverage of patient, workforce and other aspects of the pandemic, OCR reminded health care providers and other HIPAA entities of HIPAA’s requirement of prior authorization before sharing PHI or allowing media to access patients or areas where media could observe patients or their PHI throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its May 5, 2020 Guidance on Covered Health Care Providers and Restrictions on Media Access to Protected Health Information about Individuals in Their Facilities (“5/5 Guidance”), OCR warned covered health care providers and other HIPAA entities that the Privacy Rule prohibits HIPAA entities from giving media or film crews access to PHI including access to facilities where patients’ PHI could be accessible without the patients’ prior authorization and cautioned testing facilities and other health care providers to prevent unauthorized use, access or disclosure of test results and other PHI except as specifically allowed in the applicable HIPAA Law. In this respect, the 5/5 Guidance quoted then OCR Director Roger Severino, as unequivocally stating “Hospitals and health care providers must get authorization from patients before giving the media access to their medical information; obscuring faces after the fact just doesn’t cut it.”

Consistent with this warning, the 5/5 Guidance described reasonable guidelines and safeguards that HIPAA entities should use to protect the privacy of patients whenever the media is granted access to facilities. Additionally, the 5/5 Guidance specifically warned HIPAA entities among other things that:

HIPAA does not permit covered health care providers to give the media, including film crews, access to any areas of their facilities where patients’ PHI will be accessible in any form (e.g., written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form), without first obtaining a written HIPAA authorization from each patient whose PHI would be accessible to the media;
Covered health care providers may not require a patient to sign a HIPAA authorization as a condition of receiving treatment; and
Masking or obscuring patients’ faces or identifying information before broadcasting a recording of a patient does not sufficiently deidentify patient information to allow unauthorized disclosure. A valid HIPAA authorization is still required before giving the media such access.

OCR emphasized that it expected health care providers and other HIPAA entities to continue to adhere to these Privacy Rule requirements throughout the COVID-10 pandemic even as it granted temporary enforcement relief from a narrow set of other HIPAA requirements during the COVID-19 health care emergency. See e.g., 5/5 Guidance; OCR Issues Guidance on How Health Care Providers Can Contact Former COVID-19 Patients About Blood and Plasma Donation Opportunities; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Community-Based Testing Sites During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion to Allow Uses and Disclosures of Protected Health Information by Business Associates for Public Health and Health Oversight Activities During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency; OCR Issues Bulletin on Civil Rights Laws and HIPAA Flexibilities That Apply During the COVID-19 Emergency; OCR Issues Guidance to Help Ensure First Responders and Others Receive Protected Health Information about Individuals Exposed to COVID-19; OCR Issues Guidance on Telehealth Remote Communications Following Its Notification of Enforcement Discretion; OCR Announces Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency. Also see generally HIPAA and COVID-19 | HHS.gov.

Despite these warnings, throughout the COVID-19 health care emergency videos and other media reports often incorporated videos or other images of patients and other descriptions or details about patients containing PHI reporters or media outlets obtained from accessing facilities, interviewing workforce members, or shared with the media or others allowed to access patients or facilities, often without a HIPAA-compliant patient authorization and often by workforce members without authorization or otherwise in violation of their employing HIPAA entity’s policies. See e.g. Ezekiel Elliott COVID-Test Disclosure Highlights Health Care Provider & Plan HIPAA & Other Privacy Risks From Medical Testing & Other Medical Information;, Health care workers express overwhelming fatigue as COVID-19 cases surge across the country; Pandemic takes its toll on health care workers; ABC News Special Coverage: Coronavirus Pandemic. Since the widespread media coverage makes clear SJMC was not the only health care provider or other HIPAA entity where the entity or members of its workforce allowed media access to facilities, shared or allowed the media or other third-parties to take patient photos, videos, or shared or allowed media access to other PHI, additional OCR enforcement actions or settlements arising from COVID-19 related media disclosures against other HIPAA-entities are likely.

To mitigate their own organizational exposure to potential HIPAA and other privacy-related exposures from known or as-of-yet unidentified past or future media-related HIPAA violations, all HIPAA entities should consult qualified legal counsel for advice and assistance within the scope of attorney-client privilege on investigating their organizations potential risks from any past media disclosures and opportunities for mitigating any known or uncovered HIPAA exposures by acting proactively as well as for guidance on best practices to prevent or mitigate liability from future dealings with the media.

To promote their compliance and the defensibility of their practices and efforts when compliance issues arise, HIPAA entities need conduct a well-documented assessment of their current and past compliance, policies, practices and workforce training on allowing media or others to enter, film, photograph or record within their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities as well as their policies about when parties not involved in care of a particular patient can film, photograph, or otherwise record, observe or access areas where patients or patient PHI is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient.

Going forward, all HIPAA entities should ensure their policies clearly prohibit their entities, their business associates and their workforce from allowing film or media to film, photograph or even access areas where patients or their PHI are accessible or otherwise disclosing PHI to members of the media without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each patient whose presence or PHI could be observed, recorded or otherwise accessed. Adopting the policy alone is insufficient, however, HIPAA entities also need to implement and enforce appropriate procedures and training to promote compliance with those policies and processes to monitor and respond to any violations of HIPAA’s requirements.

When considering the adequacy of their current policies, practices and training concerning filming, photography and other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment areas and other PHI, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that the obligation to prevent unauthorized filming, photography or any other PHI access or disclosure PHI extends to “any third party not involved in patient care,” not merely those to media or film crews. Consequently, HIPAA entities should address potential risks from filming, photographs or other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment or recordkeeping areas, or PHI by all parties within or with access to their facilities or records including but not limited to staff, business associates, contractors, other patients as well as media or other visitors.

Recognizing that the NY-Presbyterian corrective action plan included a requirement that NY-Presbyterian require “all photography, video recording and audio recording conducted on NY-Presbyterian premises” be reviewed, preapproved and actively monitored for compliance with the Privacy Rule and NY-Presbyterian’s policies, HIPAA entities also should take steps to monitor and properly restrict and protect any filming, photography or other observations, records or other PHI by individuals within their workforce, as well as to regulate the access and activities of unrelated third parties. In this respect, HIPAA entities are cautioned about the need to prohibit and enforce suitable prohibitions against members of their workforce and others using their own personal devices or other equipment to film, photograph, and copy or disseminate photographs, film, recordings or other records or data that qualifies as or contains PHI without authorization in accordance with established protocols.

HIPAA entities also should take steps to ensure their policies and training make clear that these prohibitions apply whether or not the workforce member believes that identity of the patient or patient information is concealed or otherwise not discoverable.

Moreover, even with respect to photographs, films or other recordings or records legitimately created for treatment, payment or operations purposes, HIPAA entities generally need to take steps to restrict use, access and disclosure of the photographs or other recordings to individuals legitimately involved in patient treatment, operations, payment or other activities allowed by the Privacy Rule and to safeguard those materials against use, access or disclosure to others within or outside their workforce except as allowed by HIPAA and other applicable law. .

Since HIPAA entities also are likely to be subject to other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by the Privacy Rule, most HIPAA entities also will want to consider and take steps to identify and address these other potential legal or ethical responsibilities such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law privacy or other related exposures when conducting this review. Additionally, most HIPAA entities also will want to take into account and manage their potential exposure to privacy, theft of likeness or other intellectual property, or other statutory or common law tort or contractual claims that might attached to the unauthorized filming, photographing, or surveillance of individuals under federal or state common or statutory laws.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, HIPAA entities should consider consulting with or engaging experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

Finally, HIPAA entities should keep in mind that HIPAA compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, HIPAA entities should both monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

For More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and VIce-Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of the ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on healthcare and life science, managed care and insurance and other workforce and staffing, employee benefits, safety, contracting, quality assurance, compliance and risk management, and other legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare and life sciences, employee benefits, managed care and insurance, technology and other related industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related compliance issues.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, Media, Media Relations, Medical Privacy, OCR, Patients, Privacy, Public Policy, Self-Insured Group health Plans | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Banner Health Pays $1.25 Million To Settle Cybersecurity Breach Impacting Nearly 3 Million Individuals

February 3, 2023

Phoenix-based nonprofit health system Banner Health and its affiliates (“Banner Health”) paid $1.25 million and agreed to take corrective actions to resolve its exposure to potentially much greater Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule civil monetary penalty exposure for a 2016 cyber hacking breach that compromised the personal health information of 2.81 million consumers. OCR used its February 2 announcement of the Banner Health settlement to warn health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and business associates covered by HIPAA to guard their own systems containing protected health information against breach by cyber hacking.

Banner Health Settlement

Banner Health is one of the largest non-profit health systems in the country, with over 50,000 employees and operating in six states. Banner Health is the largest employer in Arizona and one of the largest in northern Colorado.

In November 2016, OCR initiated an investigation of Banner Health following the receipt of a breach report stating that a threat actor had gained unauthorized access to electronic protected health information, potentially affecting millions. The hacker accessed protected health information that included patient names, physician names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, clinical details, dates of service, claims information, lab results, medications, diagnoses and conditions, and health insurance information.

OCR’s investigation found evidence of long-term, pervasive noncompliance with the HIPAA Security Rule across Banner Health’s organization, a serious concern given the size of this covered entity. Organizations must be proactive in their efforts to regularly monitor system activity for hacking incidents and have measures in place to sufficiently safeguard patient information from risk across their entire network.

The potential violations OCR identified specifically included:

A lack of an analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities of electronic protected health information across the organization;
Insufficient monitoring of its health information systems’ activity to protect against a cyber-attack;
Failure to implement an authentication process to safeguard its electronic protected health information; and
Failure to have security measures in place to protect electronic protected health information from unauthorized access when it was being transmitted electronically.

Under the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan negotiated to resolve these potential violations, Banner Health paid $1,250,000 to OCR. Banner Health also agreed to implement a corrective action plan, which identifies steps Banner Health will take to resolve these potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule and protect the security of electronic patient health information that will be monitored for two years by OCR to ensure compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule. Under the corrective action plan, Banner has agreed to take the following steps:

Conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to determine risks and vulnerabilities to electronic patient/system data across the organization
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address identified risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI
Develop, implement, and distribute policies and procedures for a risk analysis and risk management plan, the regular review of activity within their information systems, an authentication process to provide safeguards to data and records, and security measures to protect electronic protected health information from unauthorized access when it is being transmitted electronically, and
Report to HHS within thirty (30) days when workforce members fail to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule.

OCR Warns Other HIPAA-Covered Entities

In the health care sector, hacking is now the greatest threat to the privacy and security of protected health information. OCR’s announcement of the settlement reports 74 percent (74%) of the breaches reported to OCR in 2021 involved hacking/IT incidents.

The announcement also notes OCR offers an array of resources to help health care organizations bolster their cybersecurity posture and comply with the HIPAA Rules,

The settlement and OCR’s announcement warn other covered entities and business associates to use these and other necessary resources to protect their systems with protected health information from cyber hacking and other breaches.

In conjunction with reminding other covered entities of these resources, the settlement announcement quotes OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer as a warning, “Hackers continue to threaten the privacy and security of patient information held by health care organizations, including our nation’s hospitals, … It is imperative that hospitals and other covered entities and business associates be vigilant in taking robust steps to protect their systems, data, and records, and this begins with understanding their risks, and taking action to prevent, respond to and combat such cyber-attacks. … Cyber security is on all of us, and we must take steps to protect our health care systems from these attacks.”

OCR’s enforcement record confirms these are not idyl threats. Breaches of the Security or Breach Notification Rules often result in significant civil monetary penalty assessments or negotiated settlements to mitigate civil liability exposures arising out of such breaches. See e.g., Clinical Laboratory Pays $25,000 To Settle Potential HIPAA Security Rule Violations (May 25, 2021); Health Insurer Pays $5.1 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 9.3 Million People (January 15, 2021); Aetna Pays $1,000,000 to Settle Three HIPAA Breaches(October 28, 2020); Health Insurer Pays $6.85 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 10.4 Million People (September 25, 2020); HIPAA Business Associate Pays $2.3 Million to Settle Breach Affecting Protected Health Information of Over 6 million Individual – (September 23, 2020); Lifespan Pays $1,040,000 to OCR to Settle Unencrypted Stolen Laptop Breach (July 27, 2020); Small Health Care Provider Fails to Implement Multiple HIPAA Security Rule Requirements (July 23, 2020).

Alerts issued by OCR regarding heightened security risks in recent months and a growing tide of highly publicized breaches send a strong warning to other covered entities and their business associates to reconfirm the adequacy of their own HIPAA privacy, security, breach notification and other procedures and protections by among other things:

Reviewing and monitoring on a documented, ongoing basis the adequacy and susceptibilities of existing practices, policies, safeguards of their own organizations, as well as their business associates and their vendors within the scope of attorney-client privilege taking into consideration data available from OCR, data regarding known or potential susceptibilities within their own operations as well as in the media, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.
Updating policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility.
Renegotiating and enhancing service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance, audit, oversight and reporting rights, workforce and vendor credentialing and access control, indemnification, insurance, cooperation and other rights and responsibilities of all entities and individuals that use, access or disclose, or provide systems, software or other services or tools that could impact on security; to clarify the respective rights, procedures and responsibilities of each party in regards to compliance audits, investigation, breach reporting, and mitigation; and other relevant matters.
Verifying and tightening technological and other tracking, documentation and safeguards and controls to the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and systems.
Conducting well-documented training as necessary to ensure that members of the workforce of each covered entity and business associate understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, understand their responsibilities and appropriate procedures for reporting and investigating potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand as well as are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reporting and responding to suspected
violations or other indicia of potential security concerns.
Tracking and reviewing on a systemized, well-documented basis actual and near-miss security threats to evaluate, document decision-making and make timely adjustments to policies, practices, training, safeguards and other compliance components as necessary to identify and resolve risks.
Establishing and providing well-documented monitoring of compliance that includes board-level oversight and reporting at least quarterly and sooner in response to potential threat indicators.
Establishing and providing well-documented timely investigation and redress of reported
violations or other compliance concerns.
Establishing contingency plans for responding in the event of a breach.
Establishing a well-documented process for monitoring and updating policies, practices and other efforts in response to changes in risks, practices and requirements.
Preparing and maintaining a well-documented record of compliance, risk, investigation and other security activities.
Pursuing other appropriate strategies to enhance the covered entity’s ability to demonstrate its compliance commitment both on paper and in operation.

Because of susceptibilities in systems, software and other vendors of business associates, suppliers and other third parties, covered entities and their business associates should use care to assess and manage business associate and other vendor-associated risks and compliance as well as tighten business associate and other service agreements to promote the improved cooperation, coordination, management and oversight required to comply with the new breach notification and other HIPAA requirements by specifically mapping out these details.

Beyond these HIPAA exposures, breaches and other HIPAA noncompliance carries other liability risks. Leaders of covered entities or their business associates also are cautioned that while HIPAA itself does not generally create any private right of action for victims of breach under HIPAA, breaches may create substantial liability for their organizations or increasingly, organizational leaders. For instance, the Department of Health & Human Services has warned health care providers participating in Medicare or other federal programs and Medicare Advantage health plans that HIPAA compliance is a program term of participation.

Health care providers and health insurers can face liability under state data privacy and breach, negligence or other statutory or common laws. In addition, physicians and other licensed parties may face professional discipline or other professional liability for breaches violating statutory or ethical standards.

Health plans also face a myriad of other exposures from failing to use appropriate cyber safeguards. Plan fiduciaries of employment-based health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) risk liability under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules. The Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (“EBSA”) now audits the adequacy of the cybersecurity and other HIPAA compliance of health plans and their third-party administrators and other business associates as part of EBSA’s oversight and enforcement of ERISA. Department of Labor Assistant Secretary for EBSA Lisa Gomez confirmed audit and enforcement of cybersecurity obligations is a key priority in EBSA’s current work plan in her February 4, 2023 comments to the American Bar Association.

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that it plans to pursue enforcement against leaders of public health care or other public companies that fail to use appropriate care to ensure their organizations comply with privacy and data security obligations.

Furthermore, appropriate cyber security practices also may be advisable elements for organizations to include in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs to mitigate potential organization liability risks under federal electronic crime and related laws.

In the face of these risks and warnings, all covered entities and their business associates should reassess and confirm the adequacy of their and their business associates’ cyber security defenses and breach response preparations.

More Information

About the Author

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Chair-Elect of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading-edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and managed care and employer benefits legal, public policy and operational concerns in the healthcare, employer benefits, and insurance and financial services industries. She speaks and publishes extensively on HIPAA and other related compliance issues.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Cyber crime, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, Employer, ERISA, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medicaid Advantage, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Peer Review, Physician Licensing, retaliation, Technology, Telemedicine, Whistleblower | Tagged: ARRA, Breach Notification, CMS, Compliance, Corporate Compliance, Data Breach, Data Security, Doctor, DOJ, EHR, Electronic Health Records, Employer, false claims act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Privacy, HITECH Act, Hospital, Hospitals, licensure, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medicare, OCR, Office of Civil Rights, OIG, PHI, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, Protected Health Information | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

FTC-HHS Seek To Help Mobile Health App Developers Assess When Certain Federal Rules Apply

December 8, 2022

Developers of mobile applications for healthcare and fitness must identify and negotiate a diverse array of federal and state laws, regulations and rulings when designing and deploying their apps.

Since figuring out which federal rules apply often proves challenging, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in conjunction with the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintain and have just updated the Mobile Health App Interactive Tool intended to help developers of health-related mobile apps understand when and federal laws and regulations might apply.

While not covering all relevant legal risks, the guidance tool does highlight certain key regulatory concerns by asking developers a series of high-level questions about the nature of their app, including about its function, the data it collects, and the services it provides to users. Based on the developer’s answers to those questions, the guidance tool points the app developer toward detailed information about certain federal laws that might apply to the app. These include the FTC Act, the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act), and the 21st Century Cures Act and ONC Information Blocking Regulations.

Using the tool can help to clarify the potential applicability of these rules to a proposed app and help focus the developer on issues to consider regarding these laws as they design in administer their apps. Running through the tool also could help reduce legal fees and other consulting anniversary costs by helping developers of these apps gather helpful information and be more prepared to participate in informed manner when working with the legal team on their compliance. Additionally documented use of the tool could prove helpful in the event of a compliance audit or investigation by capturing evidence helpful to establish a culture of compliance or mitigate other potential liability concerns.

Of course app developers using these tools need to keep in mind that they are not legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. The tools only are intended to provide guidance regarding the potential likely application of the rules covered by the tool. They do not cover broad range of other federal and state Laws, regulations, rulings, and contractual commitments that also can impact the use and design of these apps and their defensibility and a broad range of circumstances. Moreover developers also should keep in mind that the use of the tools and their discussion may uncover existing or past compliance concerns, which might best be conducted within the protection of attorney-client privilege. Consequently, developers and users should consult and closely worked with experienced, qualified legal counsel to address these and other legal risks and compliance.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

An attorney Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer is recognized for work helping organizations management people, operations and risk as a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, a “Top Woman Lawyer,” “Top Rated Lawyer,” and “LEGAL LEADER™” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Care Law; a “Best Lawyers” in “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law.”

For 35 years, Ms. Stamer’s work has focused on advising and assisting businesses and business leaders with these and other employment and other staffing, employee benefit, compensation, risk, performance and compliance management and other operational solutions and concerns. Her experience includes helping management both manage performance and manage legal risk and compliance. While helping businesses define and manage the conduct and performance of their employees, contractors and vendors, she also assists employers and others about compliance with federal and state equal employment opportunity, compensation, health and other employee benefit, workplace safety, leave, and other labor and employment laws, advises and defends businesses against labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, fraud and other regulatory compliance and other related audits, investigations and litigation, charges, audits, claims and investigations by the IRS, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, HUD, HHS, DOD, Departments of Insurance, and other federal and state regulators. Ms. Stamer also speaks, coaches management and publishes extensively on these and other related matters. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here. For important information concerning this communication click here. If you do not wish to receive these updates in the future, unsubscribe by updating your profile here.

NOTICE: Terms. These materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, a substitute for legal advice, an offer or commitment to provide legal advice or an admission. The information and statements in these materials may not address all relevant issues or apply to any situation or circumstances. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law evolves and in ways that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author disclaims and has no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any time. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication. Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein. ©2022 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Nonexclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, Mental Health, Privacy, Substance Abuse, substance abuse treatment | Tagged: fitness pp, Health Care, Health IT, mobile health app, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS’ Proposed Changes Broadening Substance Use Confidentiality Rules, Consistency With HIPAA Requirements Raise Compliance Concerns For Health Care, Insurance & Other Businesses

November 28, 2022

Mental health and other healthcare providers, health plans and issuers, employers, health care professional associations, consumer advocates, community organizations, state and local government entities, patients and caregivers and others concerned with mental health and substance abuse treatment and management should review and comment by January 30, 2023 on proposed changes to rules on unauthorized disclosures the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Patient Records under 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”) proposed by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) made public November 28, 2022 here and scheduled for publication in the December 2, 2022 Federal Register. If adopted as proposed, mental health and substance abuse providers, as well as other health care providers and insurers should prepare to meet new responsibilities and manage new liabilities under the revised rules.

On November 28, 2022, OCR and SAMHSA issued the NPRM to revise the Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records regulations at 42 CFR part 2 (“Part 2”), which seek to address concerns that concerns about discrimination or prosecution might deter people from entering treatment for SUD by protecting “records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States.”(“SUD Records”).

Currently, the Part 2 protections of patient privacy and records concerning treatment related to substance use challenges from unauthorized disclosures differ from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules (“HIPAA”) rules. These distinctions create barriers to information sharing by patients and among health care providers and create dual obligations and compliance challenges for regulated entities. To address this concern, Congress mandated in Section 3221 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) that HHS to bring Part 2 into greater alignment with certain aspects of the HIPAA Privacy rule.

The NPRM seeks to address the CARES Act mandate as Americans and their leaders struggle to continue to provide pathways for victims of substance abuse and other mental health challenges to pursue treatment and maximize their participation and enjoyment in our communities while addressing safety concerns about a growing series of rare but notorious acts of violence committed by certain inadequately diagnosed or managed victims of mental health or substance abuse. See, e.g., Fact Sheet: President Biden To Announce Strategy To Address Our National Mental Health Crisis, As Part Of Unity Agenda In His First State Of The Union; President Biden Releases National Drug Control Strategy to Save Lives, Expand Treatment, and Disrupt Trafficking; Actions Taken by the Biden-⁠Harris Administration to Address Addiction and the Overdose Epidemic; Colorado Springs LGBT Nightclub Shooting Leaves Five Dead and 25 Injured; Virginia Walmart Shooting Gunman “Was Picking People Out,” Witness Says; Opinion: Leaders Blamed the Uvalde Shooting on a Mental Health Crisis. Gun Violence Is Making That Crisis Worse; Nancy Pelosi Husband Attack Suspect David Depape Pleads Not Guilty To Federal Charges.

Amid these challenges, the NPRM proposes to implement this CARES Act mandate through the following changes to Part 2 that HHS says will help safeguard the health and outcomes of individuals with SUD while creating greater flexibility for information sharing envisioned by Congress in its passage of Section 3221 of the CARES Act:

Permit Part 2 programs to use and disclose Part 2 records based on a single prior consent signed by the patient for all future uses and disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations;
Permit the redisclosure of Part 2 records as permitted by the HIPAA Privacy Rule by recipients that are Part 2 programs, HIPAA covered entities, and business associates, with certain exceptions;
Expand prohibitions on the use and disclosure of Part 2 records in civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings conducted by a federal, state, or local authority against a patient, absent a court order or the consent of the patient;
Create two patient rights under Part 2 that align with individual rights under the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
- Right to an accounting of disclosures; and
- Right to request restrictions on disclosures for treatment, payment, and health care operations;
Require disclosures to the Secretary for enforcement;
Apply HIPAA and HITECH Act civil and criminal penalties to Part 2 violations;
Require Part 2 programs to establish a process to receive complaints of Part 2 violations;
Prohibit Part 2 programs from taking adverse action against patients who file complaints;
Prohibit Part 2 programs from requiring patients to waive the right to file a complaint as a condition of providing treatment, enrollment, payment, or eligibility for services;
Apply the standards in the HITECH Act and the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule to breaches of Part 2 records by Part 2 programs;
Modify the Part 2 confidentiality notice requirements (“Patient Notice”) to align with the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices;
Modify the HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices requirements for covered entities who receive or maintain Part 2 records to include a provision limiting redisclosure of Part 2 records for legal proceedings according to the Part 2 standards; and
Permit investigative agencies to apply for a court order to use or disclose Part 2 records after they unknowingly receive Part 2 records while investigating or prosecuting a Part 2 program, when certain preconditions are met.

While the Department is undertaking this rulemaking, the current Part 2 regulations remain in effect. However, once the comment period ends, the Biden Administration-led HHS is expected to finalize the proposed changes quickly. Consequently, in addition to sharing any concerns or other input about the proposed changes during the comment period, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, employers, community agencies, state and local governments, patients and other caregivers and other concerned parties also should begin planning and preparing to respond to the anticipated changes in the requirements.

Implications For Health Care Providers, Health Insurers & Other Businesses

The NPRM’s extension of HIPAA and HIPAA-like requirements to the Part 2 substance abuse confidentiality provides clarification by adding new obligations for health care providers and others involved in substance abuse treatment or recordkeeping. Health care providers, health insurance, and others involved with these activities will need to assess and plan to meet these new responsibilities and the steps they can be expected to take to fulfill them.

Beyond these more obvious burdens, mental health and substance abuse and other health care providers and businesses also should carefully assess the potential implications of the proposed changes on their worker and vendor credentialing and workplace safety practices as well as their health and other benefit programs. Assuming the changes are adopted in their current form, businesses sponsoring health benefit programs, and health care organizations and providers specifically should prepare to modify their HIPAA required notices of privacy practices and associated practices to comply with the proposed updates.

Businesses required to comply with Department of Transportation Drug Free Workplace or other alcohol and substance abuse requirements also should consider the potential implications of the proposed changes on their ability to secure relevant substance abuse treatment and related history. In assessing these implications, businesses also should be cognizant of a new proactivity on behalf of certain uses of drugs by workers in the workplace under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). For instance, the EEOC recently has sued Eagle Marine Services Electrical & Refrigeration, LLC for allegedly violating the ADA by refusing to hire or accommodate a worker because he used medication prescribed by his doctor to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) without making any individual assessment of the worker’s medication use or whether it would affect his ability to safely perform the marine electrician position, and instead relied on general stereotypes about disability and medication use to justify its decision not to hire him. Businesses seeking to investigate or deny employment opportunities to workers based on the worker’s past or current medication use will want to use care to ensure that their practices are tailored to defend against similar challenges.

Health plan sponsors and insurers also should assure their mental health and substance abuse treatment coverage documents and practices are defensible under the latest mental health and substance abuse parity mandates of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) and coverage requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). Along with a host of statutory changes since the original parity mandates took effect, implementing regulations and guidance about non-qualitative limitations and exclusions and heightened agency enforcement are ramping up enforcement and liability risks. In addition to exposing the health plan administrators and other fiduciaries to potential claims denial or fiduciary responsibility claims brought by participants or beneficiaries, the Department of Labor or both, administrative penalties by the EBSA, or both, the MHPAEA mental health and substance abuse parity rules are among 40 federal mandates that when violated can trigger the automatic $100 per violation per day employer excise tax penalty under Internal Revenue Code Section 6039D. Consequently, violations of the MHPAEA are particularly risky and potentially expensive for private employers, their health plans and the plan administrators and fiduciaries that administer it.

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

If your organization would like to learn more about the concerns discussed in this update or seeks assistance auditing, updating, administering or defending its human resources, compensation, benefits, corporate ethics and compliance practices, or other performance related concerns, please contact management attorney and consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Other Helpful Resources & Information

If you found this article of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing other Breaking News, articles and other resources available including:

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, Mental Health, Privacy, Substance Abuse, Substance Abuse, substance abuse treatment | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care Providers & Other HIPAA Regulated Entities Encouraged To Share Input To OCR On HITECH Act Rules Impacting HIPAA Security Breach Audit & Penalty Exposures

April 29, 2022

June 6, 2022 is the deadline for health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrative and other business associates and others to provide input to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that OCR says it seeks to help shape how it defines and implements the “recognized security standards” requirements of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act), as amended in 2021 for purposes of its administration and enforcement of civil monetary penalty and other provisions of of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“”HIPAA”). The regulatory and enforcement decisions that OCR makes could significantly impact the civil monetary penalty liability, compliance, audit and recordkeeping responsibilities that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) face under the HIPAA Security and Breach Notification Rules.

OCR is inviting public input on two issues under the OCR Request for Information on Considerations for Implementing the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, as Amended (RFI) released April 6, 2022:

The definition and administration of the “recognized security practice” factor the HITECH Act requires OCR to consider when assessing audit results, civil monetary penalty and settlement amounts and other HIPAA Security and Breach Rule enforcement; and
The rules that OCR will follow to determine when and how OCR will share portions of amounts it receives from civil monetary penalties or settlements with individuals harmed by breaches of electronic protected health information,

Recognized Security Practices

Section 13412 of the HITECH Act requires HHS to take into consideration certain recognized security practices of covered entities (health plans, health care clearinghouses, and most health care providers) and business associates1 when determining potential fines, audit results, or other remedies for resolving potential violations of the HIPAA Security Rule pursuant to an investigation, compliance review, or audit.

A primary goal of the requirement, which took effect January 5, 2021, is to encourage covered entities and business associates to do “everything in their power to safeguard patient data.”

The RFI solicits comment on how covered entities and business associates are implementing “recognized security practices,” how they anticipate adequately demonstrating that recognized security practices are in place, and any implementation issues they would like OCR to clarify through future guidance or rulemaking.

Civil Money Penalty (CMP) and Settlement Sharing

Section 13410(c)(3) of the HITECH Act requires HHS to establish by regulation a methodology under which an individual harmed by a potential violation of the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and/or Breach Notification Rules may receive a percentage of any CMP or monetary settlement collected with respect to that offense.

Section 13140(d)(1) of HITECH requires that OCR base determinations of appropriate penalty amounts on the nature and extent of the violation and the nature and extent of the harm resulting from such violation. The HITECH Act does not define “harm,” nor does it provide direction to aid HHS in defining the term.

The RFI solicits public comment on the types of harms that should be considered in the distribution of CMPs and monetary settlements to harmed individuals, discusses potential methodologies for sharing and distributing monies to harmed individuals, and invites the public to submit alternative methodologies.

Comments Due 6/6

Health plan and other Covered Entity input could significantly impact how OCR implements and administers these two important aspects of the HIPAA Security Rule going forward. As these decisions are likely to significantly impact the policies, practices, recordkeeping, breach investigation and other obligations that Covered Entities would need to meet in the event of an audit, breach or other investigation or enforcement, timely, thoughtful input from all Covered Entities and affected stakeholders is important. In addition, its decisions on how to distribute CMPs.

For more information about the RFI or instructions for submitting comments, see here.

HITECH & Other HIPAA Security Exposures Already Significant & Growing

Regardless of how OCR choses to respond to the comments received in response to the RIF, Covered Entities, their business associates and those responsible for their leadership already face significant exposure from breaches of protected health information and other lax cybersecurity practices, policies and management.

This is a lesson Texas Ear, Nose and Throat Specialists (“Texas ENT”) and a multitude of other coveered entities have learned the hard way in recent years.

HIPAA generally requires that health care providers like Texas ENT, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses Covered Entities safeguard the privacy and security of individually identifiable protected health information (“protected health information”) in paper, electronic or other form against use, access or disclosure other than as allowed by HIPAA. Along with its general restrictions upon use, access or disclosure of protected health information, HIPAA also requires that covered entities and their business associates take the special precautions to protect electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) against improper access, use, disclosure or loss required by the OCR HIPAA Security Rule. Meanwhile, the OCR HIPAA Breach Notification Rule requires that covered entities notify affected individuals, OCR and in the case of breaches involving records of more than 500 individuals, the media in accordance with the OCR Breach Notification Rule following breach of unsecured protected health information. Breaches of the Security or Breach Notification Rules often result in significant civil monetary penalty assessments or negotiated settlements to mitigate civil liability exposures arising out of such breaches. See e.g., Clinical Laboratory Pays $25,000 To Settle Potential HIPAA Security Rule Violations (May 25, 2021); Health Insurer Pays $5.1 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 9.3 Million People (January 15, 2021); Aetna Pays $1,000,000 to Settle Three HIPAA Breaches (October 28, 2020); Health Insurer Pays $6.85 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 10.4 Million People (September 25, 2020); HIPAA Business Associate Pays $2.3 Million to Settle Breach Affecting Protected Health Information of Over 6 million Individual – (September 23, 2020); Lifespan Pays $1,040,000 to OCR to Settle Unencrypted Stolen Laptop Breach (July 27, 2020); Small Health Care Provider Fails to Implement Multiple HIPAA Security Rule Requirements (July 23, 2020). While various factors can influence whether and the amount of any fine that Texas ENT will face as a result of OCR’s ongoing investigation of the breach, OCR’s enforcement record strongly suggests Texas ENT may seek to negotiate a resolution agreement or other arrangement with OCR to mitigate its exposure to potential civil monetary penalties.

Reviewing and monitoring on a documented, ongoing basis the adequacy and susceptibilities of existing practices, policies, safeguards of their own organizations, as well as their business associates and their vendors within the scope of attorney-client privilege taking into consideration data available from OCR, data regarding known or potential susceptibilities within their own operations as well as in the media, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.
Updating policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility.
Renegotiating and enhancing service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance, audit, oversight and reporting rights, workforce and vendor credentialing and access control, indemnification, insurance, cooperation and other rights and responsibilities of all entities and individuals that use, access or disclose, or provide systems, software or other services or tools that could impact on security; to clarify the respective rights, procedures and responsibilities of each party in regards to compliance audits, investigation, breach reporting, and mitigation; and other relevant matters.
Verifying and tightening technological and other tracking, documentation and safeguards and controls to the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and systems.
Conducting well-documented training as necessary to ensure that members of the workforce of each covered entity and business associate understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, understand their responsibilities and appropriate procedures for reporting and investigating potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand as well as are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reporting and responding to suspected
violations or other indicia of potential security concerns.
Tracking and reviewing on a systemized, well-documented basis actual and near miss security threats to evaluate, document decision-making and make timely adjustments to policies, practices, training, safeguards and other compliance components as necessary to identify and resolve risks.
Establishing and providing well-documented monitoring of compliance that includes board level oversight and reporting at least quarterly and sooner in response to potential threat indicators.
Establishing and providing well-documented timely investigation and redress of reported
violations or other compliance concerns.
Establishing contingency plans for responding in the event of a breach.
Establishing a well-documented process for monitoring and updating policies, practices and other efforts in response to changes in risks, practices and requirements.
Preparing and maintaining a well-documented record of compliance, risk, investigation and other security activities.
Pursuing other appropriate strategies to enhance the covered entity’s ability to demonstrate its compliance commitment both on paper and in operation.

Because susceptibilities in systems, software and other vendors of business associates, covered entities and their business associates should use care to assess and manage business associate and other vendor associated risks and compliance as well as tighten business associate and other service agreements to promote the improved cooperation, coordination, management and oversight required to comply with the new breach notification and other HIPAA requirements by specifically mapping out these details.

Depending on how OCR responds to the input it receives from its April 6, 2022 RFI, additional safeguards also may be advisable in the future. Covered Entities, and their leaders and insurers should carefully monitor OCR’s actions in this regard.

Cybersecurity & Breach Exposures Beyond HIPAA

Covered entities, their business associates and their leaders should keep in mind that their cybersecurity responsibilities and liability exposures likely extend well beyond HIPAA. Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, business associates and other service providers and other businesses and their leaders also generally face significant risk for failing to properly handle cybersecurity and breaches under a myriad of federal and state laws, regulations, common law, contracts and other sources. Examples include the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), the Federal Trade Act (the “FTA”), the False Claims Act liability for violating Medicare, Medicaid, government contractor and other conditions of participation, various federal and state cybersecurity, identity theft, electronic crimes and other statutes and regulations, shareholder, business partner, and customer claims and others.

Where the business is a public company regulated by the Security and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), these risks and their implications on shareholder and investor risk from cybersecurity deficiencies also could create securities exposures for organizations and their leaders as the SEC now is prioritizing cybersecurity investigation and enforcement against public companies and other market participants for lack cybersecurity governance, safeguards or disclosures. See e.g., SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations. Along announcing its commitment to hold market involved and impacting regulated entities accountable for failing to maintain and enforce appropriate internal and external controls to prevent, detect and redress cybersecurity threats, including appropriate board governance and risk management, access rights and controls, data loss prevention, mobile security, incident response and resiliency, vendor management, training and awareness, investor disclosures and other practices.

Where the Covered Entity is a health plan or health plan business associate, these risks also could include fiduciary liability risk under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. See e.g., HIPAA & ERISA Fiduciary Rules Drive Imperative To Protect Health Plan Data & Systems From Hacking & Other Cyber Threats.

These are just some of the emerging cybersecurity risks and responsibilities that covered entities, their leaders, service providers and insurers need to watch and manage. Amber M. Rivers, Director of the Employee Benefit Security Administration Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance will discuss these and other risks during the “Department of Labor Health Plan Compliance and Enforcement Update” at a virtual program hosted by the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits from Noon to 1:30 p.m. Central Time on May 5, 2022 to be moderated by Solutions Law Press, Inc. author and publisher, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will moderate the program. For additional information about or to register for this program, see here.

Considering these and other developments, Covered Entities, their leaders, insurers and other impacted parties should seriously consider submitting thoughtful comments to OCR in response to its April 6, RFI as well as tightening and using careful, well-documented practices to ensure their ability to demonstrate their use and administration of appropriate cybersecurity, breach investigation and other data security practices.

For Additional Information Or Assistance

If you need have questions or need assistance with health, health or other insurance, employee benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help. Longtime scribe for the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR and author of leading publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer regularly assists clients and provides input to Congress, OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and cybersecurity, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies. She also has extensive experience dealing with OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Ms. Stamer also provides leadership through her extensive professional, civil and community involvement such as her service as the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, current ABA TIPS Medicine and Law Chair-Elect and Vice Chair and former Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees Vice Chair, current RPTE Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair and former Chairpersonship of its Employee Plans and Executive Compensation Group, Fiduciary Responsibility, Plan Terminations and Distributions and Defined Contribution Plan Committees, fa former JCEB Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former SHRM Consultants Board and Region IV Chair, former Texas Association of Business Board, BACPAC Board and Dallas Chapter Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas.

Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications. She also is a highly-sought out speaker on privacy and data security who serves on the planning faculty and speaks for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters, e-mail Ms. Stamer or call (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

Important Information About This Communication

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, false claims act, Health Care, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Medical Privacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Texas ENT Data Breach Warning To Other HIPAA Entities To Tighten Security Safeguards

December 20, 2021

A server hacking incident at Texas Ear, Nose and Throat Specialists (“Texas ENT”) allowed hackers to access and copy patient records containing patient names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, and procedure codes used for billing purposes and in some cases, patient Social Security numbers of 535,489 Texas ENT patients, according to a breach notification report filed with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”). With cybersecurity incidents reaching pandemic levels, health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, their business associates and leaders need to take careful, well-documented steps to protect their data, organizations and leaders against disruptions and liabilities arising from these risks.

A Notice of Security Incident (the “Announcement”) posted to the Texas ENT website reports Texas ENT set letters notifying affected of the breach of their personal health information on December 10, 2021 and advises patients to review the statements from healthcare providers for accuracy, and to contact their provider if their review identifies services that were not received. The Announcement also states that Texas ENT is offering complimentary monitoring services through Experian to patients whose Social Security numbers were in the improperly accessed files.

The notifications to OCR, the patients and the media are required to comply with breach notification the Federally imposed breach notification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) as data breach notice requirements of the Texas Medical Records Privacy Act (“TMRPA”) and the Texas Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act (TITEPA).

The Texas ENT breach notification filed to OCR is one of a hundreds of large breach notifications recently reported to OCR. HIPAA generally requires that health care providers like Texas ENT, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their service providers that qualify as business associates (hereafter “covered entities”) safeguard the privacy and security of individually identifiable protected health information (“protected health information”) in paper, electronic or other form against use, access or disclosure other than as allowed by HIPAA. Along with its general restrictions upon use, access or disclosure of protected health information, HIPAA also requires that covered entities and their business associates take the special precautions to protect electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) against improper access, use, disclosure or loss required by the OCR HIPAA Security Rule. Meanwhile, the OCR HIPAA Breach Notification Rule requires that covered entities notify affected individuals, OCR and in the case of breaches involving records of more than 500 individuals, the media in accordance with the OCR Breach Notification Rule following breach of unsecured protected health information. Breaches of the Security or Breach Notification Rules often result in significant civil monetary penalty assessments or negotiated settlements to mitigate civil liability exposures arising out of such breaches. See e.g., Clinical Laboratory Pays $25,000 To Settle Potential HIPAA Security Rule Violations (May 25, 2021); Health Insurer Pays $5.1 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 9.3 Million People (January 15, 2021); Aetna Pays $1,000,000 to Settle Three HIPAA Breaches (October 28, 2020); Health Insurer Pays $6.85 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 10.4 Million People (September 25, 2020); HIPAA Business Associate Pays $2.3 Million to Settle Breach Affecting Protected Health Information of Over 6 million Individual – (September 23, 2020); Lifespan Pays $1,040,000 to OCR to Settle Unencrypted Stolen Laptop Breach (July 27, 2020); Small Health Care Provider Fails to Implement Multiple HIPAA Security Rule Requirements (July 23, 2020). While various factors can influence whether and the amount of any fine that Texas ENT will face as a result of OCR’s ongoing investigation of the breach, OCR’s enforcement record strongly suggests Texas ENT may seek to negotiate a resolution agreement or other arrangement with OCR to mitigate its exposure to potential civil monetary penalties.

Reviewing and monitoring on a documented, ongoing basis the adequacy and susceptibilities of existing practices, policies, safeguards of their own organizations, as well as their business associates and their vendors within the scope of attorney-client privilege taking into consideration data available from OCR, data regarding known or potential susceptibilities within their own operations as well as in the media, and other developments to determine if additional steps are necessary or advisable.
Updating policies, privacy and other notices, practices, procedures, training and other practices as needed to promote compliance and defensibility.
Renegotiating and enhancing service provider agreements to detail the specific compliance, audit, oversight and reporting rights, workforce and vendor credentialing and access control, indemnification, insurance, cooperation and other rights and responsibilities of all entities and individuals that use, access or disclose, or provide systems, software or other services or tools that could impact on security; to clarify the respective rights, procedures and responsibilities of each party in regards to compliance audits, investigation, breach reporting, and mitigation; and other relevant matters.
Verifying and tightening technological and other tracking, documentation and safeguards and controls to the use, access and disclosure of protected health information and systems.
Conducting well-documented training as necessary to ensure that members of the workforce of each covered entity and business associate understand and are prepared to comply with the expanded requirements of HIPAA, understand their responsibilities and appropriate procedures for reporting and investigating potential breaches or other compliance concerns, and understand as well as are prepared to follow appropriate procedures for reporting and responding to suspected
violations or other indicia of potential security concerns.
Tracking and reviewing on a systemized, well-documented basis actual and near miss security threats to evaluate, document decision-making and make timely adjustments to policies, practices, training, safeguards and other compliance components as necessary to identify and resolve risks.
Establishing and providing well-documented monitoring of compliance that includes board level oversight and reporting at least quarterly and sooner in response to potential threat indicators.
Establishing and providing well-documented timely investigation and redress of reported
violations or other compliance concerns.
Establishing contingency plans for responding in the event of a breach.
Establishing a well-documented process for monitoring and updating policies, practices and other efforts in response to changes in risks, practices and requirements.
Preparing and maintaining a well-documented record of compliance, risk, investigation and other security activities.
Pursuing other appropriate strategies to enhance the covered entity’s ability to demonstrate its compliance commitment both on paper and in operation.

Leaders of covered entities or their business associates also are cautioned that while HIPAA itself does not generally create any private right of action for victims of breach under HIPAA, breaches may create substantial liability for their organizations or increasingly, organizational leaders under state data privacy and breach, negligence or other statutory or common laws. In addition, physicians and other licensed parties may face professional discipline or other professional liability for breaches violating statutory or ethical standards. Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that it plans to pursue enforcement against leaders of public health care or other companies that fail to use appropriate care to ensure their organizations comply with privacy and data security obligations and the Employee Benefit Security Administration recently has issued guidance recognizing prudent data security practicces as part of the fiduciary obligations of health plans and their fiduciaries.

For Additional Information Or Assistance

If you need have questions or need assistance with health, benefit, payroll, investment or other data, systems or other privacy or security related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer may be able to help. Longtime scribe for the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits agency meeting with OCR and author of leading publications on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer also regularly assists clients and provides input to Congress, OCR and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on medical and other privacy and data security, health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns. Her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, Modern Health Care, Managed Healthcare, Health Leaders, and a many other national and local publications. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance frequently appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications. She also is a highly-sought out speaker on privacy and data security who serves on the planning faculty and speaks for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health industry, health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. If you need assistance with these or other compliance concerns, wish to inquire about arranging for compliance audit or training, or need legal representation on other matters, e-mail Ms. Stamer or call (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

Important Information About This Communication

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Health Care, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Medical Privacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, physician licensure, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Extends SVAP Comment Period To May 2, 2022; Announces Schedule For Future Regulatory Updates

October 6, 2021

May 2, 2022 is the new deadline for comments on the office of the National Coordinator (“ONC”) Standards Version Advancement Process (SVAP).

ONC has established the voluntary Standards Version Advancement Process (SVAP)¹ to enable health IT developers’ ability to incorporate newer versions of Secretary-adopted standards and implementation specifications, as part of the “Real World Testing” Condition and Maintenance of Certification requirement in Section § 170.405 of the 21st Century Cures Act.

Using SVAP, certified health IT developers may voluntarily use a more advanced version of the standard(s) and implementation specification(s) approved by the National Coordinator, than adopted in the ONC 2015 Edition Certification Criteria. Currently, ONC limits flexibility to standards and implementation specifications adopted in the certification criteria required to meet “Real World Testing” condition of certification, which include Act § 170.315(b), (c)(1) through (c)(3), (e)(1), (f), (g)(7) through (g)(10), and (h).

Health IT developers taking advantage of the SVAP flexibility must ensure their real world testing plans and results of the certified health modules use these updated standards and implementation specifications and provide advance notice to their clients and their ONC-Authorized Certification Body (ONC-ACB) before adopting the new standards.

Beginning with the current (2021) SVAP and continuing into future years, ONC says it plans to announce annual approved standards for SVAP in June followed by a comment period from January to May each year with adopted standards taking effect in August.

In anticipation of this schedule, ONC extended the SVAP public comment period to May 2, 2022 to align with the planned schedule for standards development activities.

Interested developers and others wishing to review comment on the entire SVAP or on individual standards may access them here.

Interested persons wishing to monitor future developments also may wish to register to receive updates and calendar the scheduled ONC activities for upcoming year as part of their ongoing compliance plans.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EHR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans, as well as a multitude of other health industry matters, workforce and health care change and crisis management and other highly regarded publications and presentations, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Evidence Based Medicine, Health Care, Health Care Qulity, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health IT, HHS, HITECH Act, Life Sciences, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, NIOSH, NIST, ONC, Technology, Telemedicine, templates | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

California Medical Privacy Rules Eased. New 7/1/2021 rules allow greater flexibility on disclosures of breach and give agency more fine flexibility. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OLS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/DPH-11-009-Final-Reg-Text-ADA.pdf?TSPD_101_R0=087ed344cfab2000e6180d5b948228963ad32da0f65608ac719d6195a6f27133d24ce863d99f043c0837b3f91e1430004ffeef0033a9cb5c891c837f86137a340f296f3e726ff679e108e054e92eb347c0a393522a8d745468b6d859b3ba0e76

August 3, 2021

California Medical Privacy Rules Eased. New 7/1/2021 rules allow greater flexibility on disclosures of breach and give agency more fine flexibility. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OLS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/DPH-11-009-Final-Reg-Text-ADA.pdf?TSPD_101_R0=087ed344cfab2000e6180d5b948228963ad32da0f65608ac719d6195a6f27133d24ce863d99f043c0837b3f91e1430004ffeef0033a9cb5c891c837f86137a340f296f3e726ff679e108e054e92eb347c0a393522a8d745468b6d859b3ba0e76

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ambulance, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Doctor, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Employer, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Life Sciences, managed care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, NIST, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, ONC, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy | Tagged: California, Data Breach, Health Care, Medical Privacy, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comment & Begin Preparation For Compliance With Proposed HIPAA Privacy Rule Changes

December 21, 2020

Health care providers, health plans and health insurers, health care clearinghouses (“Covered Entities”) and their business associates should budget and begin compliance plans, even as they comment on proposed changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule announced by the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) in its December 10, 2020 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule). While the official Federal Register publication date has yet to be announced, OCR already is accepting comments pending the official publication. To assure consideration, comments must be received by OCR no later than 60 days from that official Federal Register publication date.

More than 300 pages in length, the proposed HIPAA Privacy Rule changes include changes OCR intends to strengthen individuals’ rights to access their own electronic and other health information; improve information sharing for care coordination and case management for individuals; facilitate greater family and caregiver involvement in the care of individuals experiencing emergencies or health crises; enhance flexibilities for disclosures in the Opioid and COVID-19 public health emergencies or other emergency or threatening circumstances; and reduce administrative burdens on HIPAA covered health care providers and health plans. Highlights of some of the more significant proposed changes that the Proposed Rule will make if adopted as proposed include:

Individual Access Rights Expanded

The Proposed Rule includes a number of changes that if adopted as proposed, will increase significantly the burdens upon Covered Entities of complying with the individual access requirements of the Privacy Rule. Among other things, these include the following:

Responding To Access Requests. The Proposed Rule calls for:
Reducing the maximum period that Covered Entities have to respond to requests to “as soon as practicable,” but in no case later than 15 calendar days after receipt of the request” instead of current 30 calendar days;
Clarifying the current requirement for Covered Entities to provide PHI in the form and format requested by the individual if “readily producible” in that form and format by providing that “readily producible” includes secure, standards-based APIs using applications chosen by the individuals, such as a “personal health application” and protect individual’s rights to take notes, videos, and photographs, or use other personal resources to view or capture PHI in person;
Requiring Covered Entities to allow individuals access to inspect or obtain copies of their own PHI Free of charge when inspecting in person or accessing PHI on the internet, but continue to permit certain fees for labor, supplies, and postage for certain other means of access in accordance with Privacy Rules parameters. In acquiescence to the District Court’s January, 2020 holding that the prohibition against Covered Entities charging for third party copies in the current regulations exceeded its statutory authority in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, however the Proposed Rule would allow Covered Entities to charge limited fees to an individual directing transmission of an electronic copy of PHI to a third party under specified circumstances. The Proposed Rule also would require Covered Entities to provide advance notice of estimated fee schedules on their websites (if they have one) for common types of requests for copies of PHI and, upon request, provide individualized estimates of fees for copies and an itemized list of actual costs for requests for copies.
Right to Direct Copies to Third Parties. The Proposed Rule will require Covered Entities to transmit electronic PHI in an electronic health record to another Covered Entity as part of the individual’s access right. In addition, also in response to the Coix Health, LLC ruling, the Proposed Rule will limit the current right of an individual to direct a copy of PHI to a third party to an electronic copy and will specify that third party direction request need not be in writing as long as it is “clear, conspicuous, and specific.”
Verification. The Proposed Rule also would prohibit a Covered Entity from imposing “unreasonable” identity verification measures on an individual, including notarization of requests, requiring the individual to provide proof of identity in person when remove verification would be practicable, or requiring the individual to complete a full HIPAA authorization form for an access request.

Encouraging Care Coordination and Case Management Activities

The Proposed Rule also would make a number of changes that OCR believes will remove the barriers created in the current Privacy Rule to Covered Entities, whether a health care provider or health plan, engaging in individual-level care coordination and case management activities. Some of the key elements of these changes include the following:

Clarification of Rules For Individual-Level Care Coordination. The Proposed Rule would revise existing rules regarding sharing of information for individual-level care coordination to apply to Covered Entities involved in such coordination activities, whether or not the participating Covered Entity is participating in the actual care or treatment of the individual by:
- Revising the definition of “health care operations” in the current version of the Privacy Rule to clarify that the Privacy Rule allows sharing of PHI for individual-level care coordination among Covered Entities whether or not the participating Covered Entity is one involved in treatment or non-treatment involved Covered Entities such as health plans;
- Revises the current minimum necessary restriction on the disclosure of PHI for purposes of individual-level care coordination to treat all Covered Entities engaging in individual-based care coordination and case management activities the same, regardless of whether performing the activities under the “treatment” or “health care operations” functions as defined by HIPAA. Currently non-treatment involved Covered Entities participating in care coordination and case management can only receive and share the minimum necessary PHI as their lack of involvement in treatment disqualifies them for reliance upon the treatment exception to the Privacy Rule’s general requirement to limit disclosures to the minimum necessary.
- The Proposed Rule also would allow Covered Entities to disclose PHI to community-based organizations, home and community-based services (HCBS) providers, social services agencies, and other similar third parties providing health-related services for individual-level care coordination and case management without obtaining a valid authorization from the individual.

Required Updates To Notices of Privacy Practices

The Proposed Rule also would change the Privacy Rule Notice of Privacy Practices (“NPP”) requirements in a manner that would require most Covered Entities to update their NPPs and associated privacy policies. In the Proposed Rule, OCR proposes:

Replacing the requirement that certain Covered Entities that have a direct treatment relationship with an individual obtain, and retain copies of, written acknowledgements from that individual confirming their receipt of the NPP with a right for the individual to discuss the NPP with a designee of the Covered Entity.
- Modification of the required NPP content to include an additional description and instruction as to how individuals can exercise their access rights and a new, more detailed and instructive, required header meeting new specifications about the information the NPP provides to individuals with respect to their rights, how to exercise them, and the availability of the Covered Entity’s designated contact person.

Disclosures to Family Members and Other Caretakers in Certain Situations

Continuing a trend that OCR has followed over the past several years in its other guidance, the Proposed Rule also would modify the Privacy Rule under specified conditions to facilitate if not encourage health care providers more broadly to disclose PHI to family members or other caretakers of individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) or serious mental illness (SMI) and in emergency situations with less concern about exposing themselves to liability under HIPAA. The key elements of these changes are accomplished as follows:

The Proposed Rule would replace the current language that allows Covered Entities to make certain uses and disclosures of PHI based on their “exercise of professional judgment” with language allowing disclosure based on a Covered Entity’s “good faith belief” that the use or disclosure is in the best interests of the individual and add a presumption of good faith by the health care provider for this purpose.
- The Proposed Rule would enable Covered Entities to disclose PHI to avert a threat to the health or safety of a person or the public when a harm is “serious and reasonably foreseeable,” instead of the current stricter requirement that the Covered Entity see a “serious and imminent” threat to health or safety.

Clarification Regarding Disclosures to TRS Providers

The Proposed Rule also would amend the current Privacy Rules to remove telephone relay service providers (“TRS providers”) from the definition of “business associates” and expressly to allow disclosures to TRS communications assistants for persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a speech disability.

Act Now

HIPAA Covered Entities, business associates and other concerned or impacted persons immediately should begin evaluating the Proposed Rule as soon as possible. As the current comment will end 60 days after the impending publication of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register, concerned persons desiring a change to any provision of the Proposed Rule should prepare and submit appropriate comments to OCR in a timely fashion within the comment period. In addition, all Covered Entities and their business associates should review the rule in preparation for its provisions taking effect with a particular eye toward understanding the actions necessary to comply with the modified rules and to budget the financial and operational resources likely to be required to accomplish that compliance.

More Information

About the Author

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, ambulance, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Coronavirus, Corporate Compliance, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Employee Benefits, Employer, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, long-term care, managed care, medical devices, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, nursing home, occupational health, OCR, Pandemic, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, transplant, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Cyberhack Leads Health IT Network Provider To Pay $2.3 Million HIPAA Penalty

September 23, 2020

The $2.3 million dollar resolution agreement that CHSPSC LLC, (“CHSPSC”) has agreed to pay to the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) send a clear message to health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates to ensure they adequately protect electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) on their systems against cyberhacking in accordance with the Health Insurance Portabiity and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules.

An IT and health information management services to hospitals and physician clinics indirectly owned by Franklin, Tennessee based Community Health Systems, Inc., CHSPCSC has agreed to pay OCR $2,300,000 and take corrective actions to settle OCR charges that CHSPCSC’s longstanding systematic violations of the HIPAA Security Rules allowed hackers to breach confidential ePHIof more than six million people under a resolution agreement and corrective action plan reached with OCR in March, 2020 and made public by OCR on September 23, 2020 .

According to the OCR, CHSPSC’s longstanding, systematic noncompliance with the HIPAA Security Rule allowed cyberhackers to to access the ePHI stored on CHSPSC’s information system virtual private network. The resolution agreement reports that on April 10, 2014, an Advanced Persistent Threat group known as APT18, used compromised administrative credentials remotely to access CHSPSC’s information system through its virtual private network (VPN). CHSPSC was unaware of the intrusion until notified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on April 18, 2014. The last identified evidence of attacker activity occurred on August 18, 2014.

OCR determined that APT18’s intrusion affected 237 covered entities served by CHSPSC and that APT18 exfiltrated the PHI of 6,121,158 individuals. The compromised PHI included the name, sex, date of birth, phone number, social security number, email, ethnicity, and emergency contact information of these individuals.

OCR also concluded the breach was made possible by longstanding violations by CHSPSC of the HIPAA Security Rule that included its failure to conduct a risk analysis, and failures to implement information system activity review, security incident procedures, and access controls.

Furthermore, OCR reports CHSPCS allowed these Security Rule deficiencies to continue even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified CHSPSC in April 2014 that the FBI had traced a cyberhacking group’s advanced persistent threat to CHSPSC’s information system.

In announcing the resolution agreement, OCR Director Roger Severino reminded HIPAA covered entities and the business associates of the importance of guarding electronic protected health information against cyberhacks. “The health care industry is a known target for hackers and cyberthieves. The failure to implement the security protections required by the HIPAA Rules, especially after being notified by the FBI of a potential breach, is inexcusable,” said Director Severino.

In response to OCR’s announcement of the CHSPCS resolution agreement, other HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates should take steps to reevaluate the adequacy of their own organization’s and systems cybersecurity protections, as well as their processes and procedures for monitoring and responding to emerging cyberthreats.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | data breach, data security, Health Care, Health IT, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Medical Privacy, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, HIPAA, HIPAA Security | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CME Credit Offered For Providers Completing Online Replay Of 4/16 CDC Training On Certifying COVID-19 Deaths

April 16, 2020

Healthcare providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) can get continuing education credit for completing free heath care provider training available online on “Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)” originally presented by CDC live on April 16, 2020.

In addition to providing training about proper classification of COVID-19 related deaths on death certificates, health care providers participating in the call may qualify for continuing education credit.

About CDC’s 4/16 COVID-19 Death Reporting Training

The training covers updated rules on completing death certificates for patients believed to have died when infected with COVID-19 published April 2. Monitoring the emergence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and guiding public health response requires accurate and timely mortality data. As death certificates are one of the few sources of health-related data that are comparable for small geographic areas and are available over a long time period in the United States, mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) derived from information reported on death certificates to monitor deaths due to COVID-19 versus other causes of death.

During this COCA Call, the following presenters from the CDC provide an overview of the importance of mortality data, discuss the NCHS publication and the guidance it provides to clinicians who may need to certify a death involving COVID-19, and present a summary of COVID-19 surveillance through the NVSS.

Robert N. Anderson, PhD, Chief, Mortality Statistics Branch, National Center for Health Statistics;
Margaret Warner, PhD, Injury Epidemiologist, National Center for Health Statistics;
Lee Anne Flagg, PhD, Statistician (Health), National Center for Health Statistics; and
Farida Ahmad, MPH, Mortality Surveillance Lead, National Center for Health Statistics.

An advance copy of the program Slides is currently available on the CDC website and CDC plans to post a transcript of the program following the presentation.

Continuing Education Credit

Health care providers participating in today’s training may be able to qualify for continuing education credit. CDC says that health care providers wishing to receive continuing education for participation should complete the online between May 19, 2020, and May 19, 2022, and use course code WD2922. The access code is COCA041620. Continuing education certificates can be printed immediately upon completion of your online evaluation. A cumulative transcript of all CDC/ATSDR CEs obtained through the CDC Training & Continuing Education Online System will be maintained for each user.

Interested providers and others can learn mre at this CDC Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity (COCA) here.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. In addition to this update, the author of this article also is extensively published and frequent speaker on HIPAA and other medical privacy and security, pandemic and other infectious disease, and other health industry crisis preparedness and response, regulatory compliance, risk management and operations, public policy and other concerns. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297. Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management and regulatory affairs consultant, author and lecturer, who has worked extensively on pandemic and other crisis planning, preparedness and response and other business change, risk, compliance and operation management throughout her 30 plus year career.

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation, the Texas Bar Foundation and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her career long pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership domestic and international, public and private sector health care and managed care, workforce and employee benefits, insurance and financial services, their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors, and governments domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care facilities; physicians, medical staff and other health care providers and organizations; creditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; health care management and technology and other health and managed care industry clients; self-insured and insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and service providers, and other payers; employers; billing, utilization management, quality, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans and a multitude of other publications and workshops on health and other disaster and other crisis preparedness, risk management and response, as well as a multitude of other health care, workforce and other management and regulatory affairs publications and presentations, Ms. Stamer also shares her thoughtleadership through her extensive and diverse involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Examples of these involvements include her service as the current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative; past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Past Chair and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former technical advisor to the National Physicians Council on Health Care Policy; former member of the Stem Cell Advisory Committee; and in a multitude of other professional, trade, civic and community service organizations . For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. ©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, occupational health, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: cme, Complaince, COVID-19, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Labs, medical, Pandemic, pharmacy, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

4/15 ONC Briefing Covers New Health IT Funding Opportunities

April 14, 2020

Working or interested in working on the development and testing of data sharing functionalities to support clinical care, research, and improved health care outcomes? Listen in tomorrow (April 15, 2020) at 1:30 p.m. Eastern, 12:30 p.m. Central time to an informational briefing about newly announced funding opportunities issued by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology under its Leading Edge Acceleration Projects (LEAP) in Health Information Technology (Health IT) whose specific aims address one of the following areas:

Advancing Registry Infrastructure for a Modern API-based Health IT Ecosystem
Cutting Edge Health IT Tools for Scaling Research
Integrating Health Care and Human Services Data to Support Improved Outcomes

The new funding opportunities are part of efforts to promote the interoperability of heath care data to enhance health care quality and affordability that continues to be a top ONC priority since ONC released its 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act and to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden.

ONC’s resulting emphasis on health data interoperability raises new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. The new funding opportunities are intended to produce new capabilities for achieving these objectives.

For more information, visit LEAP in Health IT.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, occupational health, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Complaince, COVID-19, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Labs, medical, Pandemic, pharmacy, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Adds HIPAA Privacy Rule Enforcement Relief For Community-Based COVID-19 Testing Sites; Updated HIPAA Risk Assessments Advisable For COVID-19 Impacted Operational Changes

April 9, 2020

All Health Care Providers & Business Associates Reminded To Conduct Documented Risk Assessments In Response To COVID-19 Operational Changes

The U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act Privacy Rule 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency enforcement relief for certain covered health care providers and their business associates participating in the operation of mobile, drive-through, or walk-up COVID-19 specimen collection and testing sites that only provide COVID-19 specimen collection or testing services to the public (Community-Based Testing Sites, or CBTS). The Notification of Enforcement Discretion ON CBTS During The COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (“Notice”) expands upon the series of HIPAA enforcement relief and other flexibility OCR has granted to health care providers and other HIPAA-covered entities and business associates when dealing with the COVID-19 National Health Emergency declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020.

While welcome relief for those health care providers and business associates that qualify for this relief, it is critical that all health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates do not overlook the importance of ensuring their HIPAA obligations are fulfilled amid the frenzy of coping with the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Like OCR’s previously announced March 30, 2020 Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency (“Telehealth Relief”) and the COVID-19 related flexibilities granted by OCR in its February 2020 Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services BULLETIN: HIPAA Privacy and Novel Coronavirus (“OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin”), the CBTS Notice provides valuable flexibility and relief for HIPAA covered entities and business associates that qualify for the granted relief. While welcoming this relief, all covered entities and business associates need to keep in mind that the shifting of care locations, systems, affiliations and other arrangements to deal with the COVID-19 national health emergency generally are accompanied by changes in the collection, use, access, disclosure, storage and transmission of protected health information generally and electronic protected health information and its associated devices and systems. Except to the extent protected by COVID-19 or other specific disaster relief from OCR, covered entities and business associates need to use care to conduct appropriately documented risk assessments and take other necessary steps to maintain HIPAA compliance in these operations and systems throughout the emergency. See also COVID-19 Telehealth Relief; CMS ESRD, General Practitioner Telehealth Toolkits Released; OCR Grants HIPAA Telemedic ine Relief During COVID-19 Crisis.

April 9 HIPAA Enforcement Relief For Certain COVID-19 Testing Related Activities

According to Director Roger Severino, the limited enforcement relief in the Notice is intended “to encourage the growth of mobile testing sites so more people can get tested quickly and safely.” Under the April 9, 2020 Notice, OCR will not impose penalties for violations of HIPAA regulatory requirements committed by covered entities or business associates in connection with their good faith participation in the operation of COVID-19 testing sites during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency. The enforcement relief provided by the s retroactive to violations committed on or after March 13, 2020 even though just announced on April 9.

The enforcement relief applies to all HIPAA covered health care providers and their business associates when such entities are, in good faith, participating in the operation of a CBTS. According to the Notice, operation of a CBTS includes all activities that support the collection of specimens from individuals for COVID-19 testing. Covered entities and business associates intending to rely upon the enforcement relief need to understand its limited scope. The relief only applies to health care providers or their business associates when participating in CBTS related activities. It does not apply to non-CBTS related activities of health care providers or their business associates including the handling of PHI outside of the operation of a CBTS or to health plans, health care clearinghouses, or their business associates performing health plan and clearinghouse functions. To the extent that an entity performs both plan and provider functions, the Notice says the relief only applies to the entity in its role as a covered health care provider and only to the extent that it participates in a CBTS. Covered entities and business associates not covered by the CBTS relief provided by the Notice generally remain subject to all otherwise applicable HIPAA requirements except as otherwise provided in the Telehealth Relief or other COVID-19 related flexibilities granted by OCR in the OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin or other previously issued HIPAA guidance for dealing with public emergencies,

While committing that OCR will not take HIPAA enforcement action against covered entities or business associates for violating HIPAA’s regulatory requirements during the COVID-19 emergency, the Notice nevertheless encourages covered entities and business associates participating in the good faith operation of a CBTS to implement reasonable safeguards to protect the privacy and security of individuals’ PHI including:

Using and disclosing only the minimum PHI necessary except when disclosing PHI for treatment.
Setting up canopies or similar opaque barriers at a CBTS to provide some privacy to individuals during the collection of samples.
Controlling foot and car traffic to create adequate distancing at the point of service to minimize the ability of persons to see or overhear screening interactions at a CBTS. (A six foot distance would serve this purpose as well as supporting recommended social distancing measures to minimize the risk of spreading COVID-19.)
Establishing a “buffer zone” to prevent members of the media or public from observing or filming individuals who approach a CBTS, and posting signs prohibiting filming.
Using secure technology at a CBTS to record and transmit electronic PHI.
Posting a Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), or information about how to find the NPP online, if applicable, in a place that is readily viewable by individuals who approach a CBTS.

While OCR says the Notice’s enforcement relief for CBTS related activity is not conditional upon adherence to these recommendations, CBTS involved covered entities and business associations should keep in mind that the OCR relief does not necessarily affect their otherwise applicable requirements, if any, to comply to these and other health or medical privacy, data security, confidentiality or other similar requirements applicable under otherwise applicable state statutory or common laws, regulations, accreditation or credentialing, contractual or other legally relevant requirements or standards.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Conduct Documented Risk Assessment To Verify Compliance Taking Into Account COVID-19 Operational Changes & Relief

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates hoping to rely upon the relief in the CBTS Notice, the Telehealth Relief, the OCR COVID-19 HIPAA Bulletin or other previously issued HIPAA guidance for dealing with public emergencies, need to verify their qualification and compliance with that guidance. In the meantime, all HIPAA covered entities and business associates also should be cognizant of the advisability of also conducting timely, documented risk assessments and taking other necessary steps to ensure that they can demonstrate that their ongoing operations, taking into account any COVID-19 specific changes in operations, systems, locations, business associates or other HIPAA relevant arrangements or operations, comply with all remaining relevant requirements of HIPAA or other relevant federal or state statutory, regulatory, common law, ethical, contractual or other requirements. This is particularly important with respect to modification locations, equipment, or other COVID-19 related changes may impact or disrupt usual operations or involve the use, access, disclosure, retention or transmission of protected health information or other sensitive data outside of processes, systems or location previously subject to a risk assessment to confirm and document adequate compliance with HIPAA or other relevant requirements. To the extent that any deficiencies may have occurred, timely action should be taken to conduct an appropriate documented investigation and risk assessment, and provide any necessary breach notification or other corrective action necessary to correct or mitigate those events. Because of the potential sensitivity of these activities, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associations should consider contacting experienced legal counsel to arrange for those activities to be structured to preserve the possibility of using attorney-client privilege or other legal privileges to help defend sensitive communications or evaluations against discovery in the event of a future litigation or administrative investigation.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, COVID-19, data breach, data security, Direct Primary Care, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, occupational health, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Complaince, COVID-19, Data Security, Health Care, HIPAA, Labs, medical, Pandemic, pharmacy, Privacy, Risk Management | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

COVID-19 Telehealth Relief; CMS ESRD, General Practitioner Telehealth Toolkits Released

March 24, 2020

April 9 HIPAA Enforcement Relief For Certain COVID-19 Testing Related Activities

Using and disclosing only the minimum PHI necessary except when disclosing PHI for treatment.
Setting up canopies or similar opaque barriers at a CBTS to provide some privacy to individuals during the collection of samples.
Controlling foot and car traffic to create adequate distancing at the point of service to minimize the ability of persons to see or overhear screening interactions at a CBTS. (A six foot distance would serve this purpose as well as supporting recommended social distancing measures to minimize the risk of spreading COVID-19.)
Establishing a “buffer zone” to prevent members of the media or public from observing or filming individuals who approach a CBTS, and posting signs prohibiting filming.
Using secure technology at a CBTS to record and transmit electronic PHI.
Posting a Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), or information about how to find the NPP online, if applicable, in a place that is readily viewable by individuals who approach a CBTS.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released two comprehensive toolkits on telehealth:

The Telehealth Toolkit for General Practitioners available here;
The End-Stage Renal Disease Providers Toolkit available here .

The Toolkits’ release follows up on last week’s Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (“CMS”) loosening of requirements for Medicare coverage of telehealth services and privacy and data security requirements so that beneficiaries can receive a wider range of services from their doctors without having to travel to a healthcare facility on a temporary and emergency basis under the 1135 waiver authority and Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.

COVID-19 Emergency TeleHealth Waivers & Rules

Under this temporary new waiver, Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patient’s places of residence starting March 6, 2020. The waiver applies to a range of providers, such as doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers, will be able to offer telehealth to their patients.

New TeleHealth Toolkits

Each of the telehealth toolkits released today contains electronic links to reliable sources of information on telehealth and telemedicine, which will reduce the amount of time providers spend searching for answers and increase their time with patients. HHS intends these links to help providers choose learn about the general concept of telehealth, choose telemedicine vendors, initiate a telemedicine program, monitor patients remotely, and develop documentation tools. Additionally, the information contained within each toolkit also outlines temporary virtual services that could be used to treat patients during this specific period of time.

COVID-19 Temporary Limited Scope HIPAA Privacy Telehealth Relief

The HHS COVID-19 emergency teleheath waivers follow up on the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) March 20, 2020 Notification of Enforcement Discretion on Telehealth Remote Communications (the “Notice”) announcing temporary, limited scope enforcement relief from some, but not all of the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules for health care providers using “non-public facing” communication technologies to provide telemedicine services during the COVID-19 health care emergency

Intended to allow health care providers greater latitude under HIPAA to communicate with patients and provide telehealth services through remote communications technologies during the COVID-19 national emergency, the Notice allows covered health care providers wishing to use audio or video communication technology to provide telehealth to patients during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency the option to any availabe “non-public facing” remote communication product to communicate with patients if the platform by verifying the platform is HIPAA compliant and securing the necessary business associate agreement (“BAA”) with the communication provider.

Specifically the Notice announces OCR is exercising its enforcement discretion not to impose penalties for noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth using non-public facing audio or video communication products during the COVID-19 nationwide public health emergency in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice. The non-enforcement policy applies to telehealth provided for any reason, regardless of whether the telehealth service is related to the diagnosis and treatment of health conditions related to COVID-19. During the COVID-19 emergency, this relief for non-public facing remote communications allows a health care providers the flexibility when it determines appropriate in his or her professional judgement to request to examine a patient using a video chat application connecting the provider’s or patient’s phone or desktop computer in order to assess a greater number of patients while limiting the risk of infection of other persons who would be exposed from an in-person consultation.

The relief does not apply to “public facing” remote communications however, Facebook Live, Twitch, TikTok, and similar video communication applications are considered “public facing.” The OCR bulletin states health care providers should not use any of these or other public facing remote communications to provide telehealth services under the Bulletin.

The Notice also alerts health care providers providing telemedicine services under the Notice need to ensure they have in place appropriate business associate agreements {“BAAs”) with each technology vendors used to conduct these communications and that the vendor is otherwise HIPAA compliant. The Notice lists the following as some vendors that have represented to OCR that they provide HIPAA-compliant video communication products and that they will enter into a HIPAA BAA include:

Skype for Business
Updox
VSee
Zoom for Healthcare
me
Google G Suite Hangouts Meet

Providers should note that the Notice also states that OCR does not endorse, recommend or certify any of these vendors or the adequacy of their BAAs. Consequently, providers intending to use any of thes platforms should conduct their own documented due diligence to confirm that the necessary HIPAA requirements are met. Providers also should keep in mind that the OCR Notice does not modify any otherwise applicable federal or state law, contractual or ethical requirements that may apply to their use of these telemedicine platforms. As many provider’s HIPAA notices may have included statements inconsistent with the use of these technologies, the provider should consider providing notification of the change of its practices that includes disclosures about potentially lower privacy protections. Because the relief is limited in scope and duration, providers relying on the relief also will need to closely monitor developments and adjust practices as necessary when the emergency waivers expire or are modified.

Covered Entities & Business Associates Should Conduct Documented Risk Assessment To Verify Compliance Taking Into Account COVID-19 Operational Changes & Relief

More Information & Resources

We hope this update is helpful. If you need assistance reviewing or responding to these or other health care related risk management, compliance, enforcement or management concerns, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, may be able to help. To learn more about Ms. Stamer, her services, experience, publications or involvements; to review or request other developments, publications, resources and tools; or to register for future updates, see www.cynthiastamer.com, see www.cynthiastamer.com; connect on LinkedIn or Facebook; or contact us via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297

About The Author

Her experience includes extensive work domestically and internationally with hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing and other long term care, rehabilitation and other health care facilities; physicians, medical staff and other health care providers and organizations; accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; health care management and technology and other health and managed care industry clients; self-insured and insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, insurers and service providers and other payers; employers; billing, utilization management, quality, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EHR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and the author of “Privacy and the Pandemic Workshop” for the Association of State and Territorial Health Plans and a multitude of other publications and workshops on health and other disaster and other crisis preparedness, risk management and response, as well as a multitude of other health care, workforce and other management and regulatory affairs publications and presentations, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership through her extensive and diverse involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Examples of these involvements include her service as the current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former JCEB Council Representative; past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; former ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Past Chair and current Co-Chair of its Welfare Benefits Committee; former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former technical advisor to the National Physicians Council on Health Care Policy; former member of the Stem Cell Advisory Committee; and in a multitude of other professional, trade, civic and community service organizations.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disease Management, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Licensing, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Pandemic, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Prohibited Transaction, Reimbursement, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Gastroenterology Practices Pays $100K For HIPAA Noncompliance

March 3, 2020

The $100,000 settlement payment the medical practice of Steven A. Porter, M.D., has agreed to pay $100,000 to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to settle a potential violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule Serves as a warning to other physicians and healthcare providers that they too could pay big bucks for failing to comply with HIPAA. The resolution agreement and corrective action plan may be found here.

Dr. Porter’s medical practice provides gastroenterological services to over 3,000 patients per year in Ogden, Utah.

OCR began investigating Dr. Porter’s medical practice after it filed a breach report with OCR related to a dispute with a business associate. OCR’s investigation determined that Dr. Porter had never conducted a risk analysis at the time of the breach report, and despite significant technical assistance throughout the investigation, had failed to complete an accurate and thorough risk analysis after the breach and failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level.

Many physician and other small healthcare providers underestimate their responsibilities or their exposure for noncompliance. Many have never conducted the necessary risk analysis or initially adopted the requisite policies and procedures to comply. Furthermore, practices relying upon outsourced management or compliance services for their HIPAA compliance need to ensure that they have appropriate business associates agreements with those and all other service providers. While OCR typically takes into account efforts to obtain services as evidence of a culture of compliance, when breaches happen in the practice or at the business associate, A physician or other healthcare provider can expect OCR to investigate their compliance and potentially their culpability for the breach. physicians and other healthcare providers also should not assume that their engagement of a service HIPAA to comply with or provide HIPAA compliant services equates to making that service provider accountable for the quality in adequacy of the services.Typically service providers and consultants limit their liability contractually and otherwise when providing these services, often do not have adequate compliance themselves, or both. Licensing agreements and other services contracts typically include various provisions excusing or limiting the service provider from liability for deficiencies in compliance resulting from inadequacies in their procedures, operational noncompliance or both. In some instances, business associates may include provisions in their business associate agreement or other related agreements that actually obligate the healthcare provider to defend and indemnify the service provider for breaches and other liabilities arising out of HIPAA noncompliance. Since the cost of investigating and defending an alleged complaint can be very expensive even if no penalties are sought by OCR, most physicians and other healthcare providers should explore the availability of insurance coverage to help protect against these expenses.

“All health care providers, large and small, need to take their HIPAA obligations seriously,” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “The failure to implement basic HIPAA requirements, such as an accurate and thorough risk analysis and risk management plan, continues to be an unacceptable and disturbing trend within the health care industry.”

In addition to the monetary settlement, Dr. Porter will undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring.

Physicians and other healthcare providers need to keep in mind that OCR penalties are not the only risk of HIPAA violations. Noncompliance with these requirements also commonly gives rise to licensing board, peer review, and other professional, employment or contractual consequences as well as negative publicity.

The resolution agreement demonstrates OCR requires physicians shouldn’t expect OCR to look the other way when they violate HIPAA. Given the potential professional and monetary liability risk that result from complaints and violations, physicians and other healthcare Should consult with qualified legal counsel for assistance with assessing the adequacy of their current clients within the scope of attorney-client privilege. Additionally, in the event of a complaint or threaten complaint, physicians and other healthcare providers should take appropriate steps to conduct a documentary investigation. As discussions and activities conducted in association with such investigations can involve sensitive communications and information, it also is advisable to consult with legal counsel at the beginning of an issue to determine whether the investigation or other activities should be conducted within the scope of attorney-client privilege so as to minimize exposure of sensitive communications as admissions or another discoverable evidence for administrative or litigation proceedings.

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

Leave a Comment » | ambulance, ASC, data security, Direct Primary Care, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Emergency Care, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health IT, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Licensing, long-term care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, OCR, participating provider, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Privacy, Substance Abuse, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Ruling Gives Health Care & Other HIPAA Covered Entities Option To Reduce Costs of Responding To 3rd Party PHI Record Requests

January 29, 2020

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their records providers and other business associates should review and update their existing policies and practices on the charge and other procedures for responding to third party requests for records containing protected health information (“PHI”) in response to newly allowed flexibility created by the January 23, 2020 federal district court order (the “Coix Order”) in Coix Health, LLC v. Azar, et al, No 18 –CV-0040 (D>D.C. January 23, 2020) that bars enforcement of certain requirements of the Department of Health & Human Service (“HHS”) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) rules implementing patient rights to access to PHI created by the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) from health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (“”Covered Entities”) and their business associates (“HIPAA entities”). Utilizing the flexibility resulting from the Coix Order could help reduce health plan costs of compliance with the HIPAA right of access rule by allowing the health plan and its records providers more freedom to determine the charges and format for delivering PHI in response to records requests received from other insurers, lawyers and other third parties.

Coix Order Invalidates Pieces of OCR HIPAA Rules On PHI Record Rules

The new flexibility results from a January 23, 2020 Coix Order in response to a lawsuit brought by Coix Health, LLC (“”Coix”) challenging the “Patient Rate” and other provisions of OCR’s regulation implementing HIPAA’s right of access requirements under 45 C.F.R. §164.524 as adopted by OCR as part of its final rule entitled “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules.” (The “2013 Omnibus Rule”) on January 25, 2013. In particular, the 2013 Omnibus Rule includes a “Patient Rate” rule that limits the charges that Covered Entities can make for delivering PHI requested by patients and third parties to prevent patient access to PHI from being thwarted by excessive fees. As part of the Patient Rate rule, OCR restricted what Covered Entities and their records providers can charge to provide copies of protected health information. The Patient Rate rule restricts charges that can be imposed to provide protected health information, restricts the methods for calculating these charges and limits the type and amount of labor costs that can be included when calculating the Patient Rate. The Patient Rate rule in the 201 Omnibus Rule also requires that Covered Entities and their records companies provide the requested PHI directly to the patient or to a third party designed by the patient and in the format requested by the patient regardless of the format in which the Covered Entity or its medical provider maintains the PHI within its record.

When originally implemented, the medical records industry generally understood that the Patient Rate limitations applied only to requests for PHI made by the patient for use by the patient. Before 2016, however, Covered Entities and their medical records providers generally understood that this Patient Rate rule did not apply to or limit fees that Covered Entities or their medical records providers could charge commercial entities or other third parties like insurance companies and law firms to fill requests for PHI. That understanding changed, in 2016, however, when HHS issued guidance that stated that the Patient Rate applies even to requests to deliver PHI to third parties.

A specialized medical-records provider that contracts with healthcare suppliers nationwide to maintain, retrieve, and produce individuals’ PHI, Cox handles tens of millions of requests for records containing PHI annually including demands by healthcare providers for treatment purposes, patients asking for their own PHI, and third parties, such as life insurance companies and law firms, seeking a patient’s PHI for commercial or legal reasons. According to Cox, OCR’s interpretation of the Patient Rate rule as applicable to third party requests as well as direct patient requests cost it and other medical records companies millions of dollars in revenue. Accordingly, Coix filed the Coix Health, LLC v. Azar, et al lawsuit challenging OCR’s 2016 application of the Patient Rate to third party requests as violating the procedural and substantive protections of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). In addition to this challenge to the scope of the Patient Rate, Coix also contested OCR pronouncements in the 2016 guidance document on (1) the types of labor costs that are recoverable under the Patient Rate; and (2) the three alternative methods identified for calculating the Patient Rate as violating the APA’s procedural and substantive provisions. Finally, Coix also challenged the requirement in the Patient Rate rule that records companies to send PHI to third parties regardless of the format in which the PHI is contained and in the format specified by the patient. According to Coix, Congress required only that certain types of electronic health records be delivered to third parties, not all records regardless of their format, as HHS’s regulations now command.

In its January 23, 2020 ruling on HHS’s motion to dismiss and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the D.C. District Court agreed with OCR that OCR’s rule requiring the use of one of three methods for calculating the Patient Rate was unreviewable as a final agency action and dismissed Coix’ challenge to that requirement. Concerning Coax’s other challenges, the Court sided with Coix. It ruled that:

OCR’s 2013 rule compelling delivery of PHI to third parties regardless of the records’ format is arbitrary and capricious insofar as it goes beyond the statutory requirements set by Congress;
OCR’s broadening of the Patient 3 Rate in 2016 is a legislative rule that the agency failed to subject to notice and comment in violation of the APA; and
OCR’s 2016 explanation concerning what labor costs can be recovered under the Patient Rate is an interpretative rule that OCR was not required to subject to notice and comment.

Accordingly, District Court in the Coix Order declares unlawful and vacates (1) the 2016 Patient Rate expansion and (2) the 2013 mandate broadening PHI delivery to third parties regardless of format within the individual right of access” set forth in the provisions of 45 C.F.R. §164.524 of the 2013 Omnibus Rule insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to protected health information of an individual in an electronic format.” Additionally, the federal court ordered that the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) only apply to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.

OCR Plans To Comply With Coix Order In Applying Patient Record Rule

In an “Important Notice Regarding Individuals’ Right of Access to Health Records” released January 28, 2020, OCR announced that that it will comply with the Coix Order vacating the “third-party directive” within the individual right of access “insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to [protected health information] of an individual . . . in an electronic format.” Additionally, OCR stated that the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) will apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party. However, OCR also added that the right of individuals to access their own records and the fee limitations that apply when exercising this right are undisturbed and remain in effect. OCR will continue to enforce the right of access provisions in 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 that are not restricted by the court order.

Update Patient Rate & Access Provisions Of HIPAA Policies & Notices

As a result of the Coix Order, Covered Entities and their medical records providers still must calculate the Patient Rate in accordance with one of the three allowed methodologies when providing a patient with records containing PHI in response to a patient request. However, Covered Entities and their medical records provider now may exercise greater flexibility when determining the format and charges when responding to requests from third parties other than the patient for records containing PHI. Before doing so, however, most Covered Entities and business associates will want to update their HIPAA policies and procedures to reflect the new practices consistent with the new HIPAA and other relevant requirements. Updating the policies first is important because the 2013 Omnibus Rule states Covered Entities violate HIPAA by failing to follow their own HIPAA privacy and security policies when those practices are more restrictive than those mandated by OCR’s 2013 Omnibus Rule. Consequently however, Covered Entities and their medical records companies desiring to exercise this newly available flexibility should revise their existing policies and procedures to authorize their exercise of this new flexibility consistent with the Coix Order and associated OCR guidance.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the Coix Order or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2020 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, Electronic Health Records, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Warns HIPAA Entities To “Get Serious” About HIPAA Compliance In Announcing Latest Settlement Against Ambulance Company

December 31, 2019

The $65,000 payment and corrective action plan commitments West Georgia Ambulance, Inc. (“West Georgia”) is making to settle Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) charges it recurrently violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) Security Rule sends a warning to all oher HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearighouses and their business associates (“covered entities”)maintain and be prepared to defend their own HIPAA compliance under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“Resolution Agreement”) OCR announced on December 30, 2019.

The Resolution Agreement resolves charges resulting from an OCR investigation initiated in response to a HIPAA breach report the Georgia based ambulance company filed in 2013 in which the company, which provides emergency and non-emergency ambulance services in Carroll County, Georgia, disclosed the loss of an unencrypted laptop containing the protected health information (PHI) of 500 individuals. The breach occurred when an unencrypted laptop fell off the back bumper of an ambulance. The laptop was not recovered. West Georgia reported that exactly 500 individuals were affected by the breach.

In the course of its investigation of the breach report, OCR’s investigation uncovered long-standing noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules, including failures to conduct a risk analysis, provide a security awareness and training program, and implement HIPAA Security Rule policies and procedures. Specifically, the Resolution Agreement states that West Georgia:

Did not conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Failed to have a HIPAA security training program, and failed to provide security training to its employees. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(5);
Failed to implement Security Rule policies or procedures. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.316; and
Despite OCR’s investigation and technical assistance, “did not take meaningful steps to address their systemic failures.”

To resolve its exposure to the substantially higher civil monetary penalties that OCR could impose for violations of this nature, West Georgia agreed to pay a $65,000 resolution payment to OCR and implement and comply with a corrective action plan that in addition to requiring West Georgia to correct the compliance deficiencies, also subjects West Georgia to two years of OCR monitoring and oversight.

The Resolution Agreement and corrective action plan carry a number of important messages for other health care providers and other Covered Entities. First, the OCR enforcement action against West Georgia coming at the end of yet another heavy HIPAA enforcement year by OCR reminds Covered Entities that OCR is serious about HIPAA enforcement on the heels of its 2018 HIPAA record setting collection of $28.7 million in civil monetary penalties and resolution payments including the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. See OCR Concludes 2018 with All-Time Record Year for HIPAA Enforcement. While not topping this record, OCR during 2019 now has collected civil monetary penalties and resolution payments totaling more than $15 million from HIPAA Covered Entities and their business associates including:

Second, the Resolution Agreement and various other smaller settlements during the year show HIPAA compliance and enforcement is a concern for smaller provideres and other covered entities, not juswt the huge ones. While the $65,000 settlement payment required by the Resolution Agreement is substantially smaller than the amounts of the civil monetary penalties and many of resolution payments OCR collected in its other 2019 enforcement actions, the West Georgia and other 2019 enforcement actions demonstrate the teeth behind the warning in the OCR Press Release announcing the West Georgia Resolution Agreement from OCR Director Roger Severino that“All providers, large and small, need to take their HIPAA obligations seriously.” With OCR promises to keep up its vigorous investigation and enforcement of the HIPAA requirements, every Covered Entity and business associate should take the necessary steps to verify and maintain their HIPAA compliance and to be prepared to defend their compliance under the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and HIPAA access and other individual rights mandates of HIPAA.

Third, OCR’s statement in the Resolution Agreement about the failure by West Georgia to meaningfully act to correct compliance deficiencies and cooperate in other corrective action during the period following the breach report highlights the importance for covered entities involved in a breach or other dealings with OCR on a potential compliance concern to behave appropriately to express and exhibit the necessary concern OCR expects regarding the compliance issue to position themselves to request and receive the clemency OCR is empowered under HIPAA to extend when deciding the sanctions for any noncompliance.

Of course meeting the requirements of HIPAA is not the only concern that covered entities should consider as they review and tightened their HIPAA and other privacy and data security procedures. Health care providers and other covered entities also should keep in mind their other obligations to protect patient and other confidential information under other federal laws, the requirements of which also are ever-evolving. For instance, on January 1, 2020 Texas providers like other Texas businesses will become subject to a shortened deadline for providing notice of data breaches under a new law enacted by the Texas Legislature in its last session. Arrangements should be designed to fulfill all of these requirements as well as any ethical or contractual.

Covered entities also should keep in mind that violations of HIPAA can have implications well beyond HIPAA.ramifications beyond HIPAA itself. For instance, heath care providers can face disqualification from federal program participation, licensing and ethics discipline and other professional consequences. Health plans and their fiduciaries also may face Department of Labor and other fiduciary claims, while insurers can face licensing and other regulatory consequences.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about this or other labor and employment developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer has extensive legal, operational, and public policy experience advising and representing health care, health care and other entities about HIPAA and other privacy, data security, confidentiality and other matters.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 30 plus year career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services, public and private primary, secondary, and other educational institutions, and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As a part of this work, she has recurrently worked extensively with public school districts and public and private primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, academic medical, and other educational institutions, insured and self-insured health plans; domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, employers; and federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies on health care, education, and other data privacy, security, use, protection and disclosure; disability and other educational rights; workforce, and a host of other risk management and compliance concerns.

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

1 Comment | air ambulance, ambulance, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Agencies Update Guidance On HIPAA Health Care & FERPA/IDEA Educational Privacy Rule Interplay

December 19, 2019

Public and private educational institutions, their administration, students and parents and health care providers, health plans, and others dealing with student health and safety concerns will want to review updated joint guidance published by the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education about their shared understanding about the interaction and application of the educational privacy and records access rights of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the educational disability privacy and confidentiality rules of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the health information privacy and protections Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to records maintained on students.

The newly released 2019 Joint Guidance on the Application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) And the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) To Student Health Records (“Guidance”) updates and expands on prior joint guidance jointly published by the agencies in 2008. Intended to help school administrators, health care professionals, families, and others understand how FERPA, the IDEA and HIPAA apply to education and health records maintained about students, the Guidance updates and expands upon prior guidance in place since November, 2008. In keeping with the Trump Administrator’s broader prioritization of addressing school and other mental health and safety concerns, the Guidance also addresses certain disclosures that are allowed without the written consent of the parent or eligible student under FERPA or without authorization under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, especially those related to emergency health or safety situations.

FERPA & HIPAA Generally

The previous and new Guidance addresses the intersection and interrelationship between FERPA’s rules on the confidentiality and access rights for “educational records” applicable to educational institutions and the HIPAA confidentiality, security, and access and other requirements applicable to the use, access, protection and disclosure of ‘protected health information” by health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), also are covered as education records under both FERPA and IDEA. IDEA includes confidentiality provisions that are similar to, but broader than, FERPA to protect the privacy of PII in the early intervention or education records of children referred to the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. §1417(c) and for children ages 3 through 21 the IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR §§ 300.610 300.626 and for children with disabilities under the age of three the IDEA Part C regulations at 34 CFR §§ 303.400 – 303.416. Since educational records covered by FERPA and the IDEA often include various diagnostic, medical or other records that in the hands of a health care provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse generally are protected health information and schools provide certain diagnosis, screening, care and other services through nurses or other professional medical staff that would be considered health care providers in other contexts, confusion about how the two sets of rules interplay are common.

HIPAA Privacy Rule May Apply To Private Schools Under Certain Circumstances

Generally, the agencies continue their position that public schools generally are not subject to HIPAA. However, the new Guidance clarifies that private schools may be subject to HIPAA in certain situations. In this respect, the Guidance states that in most cases, the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not apply to an elementary or secondary school because the school either:

Is not a HIPAA covered entity; or
Is a HIPAA covered entity but maintains health information only on students in records that are “education records” under FERPA and, therefore, not PHI covered by the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

However, the Guidance now clarifies that a private school that are exempt from FERPA because they don’t receive any federal funds could be required under certain circumstances to comply with the HIPAA transaction requirements and HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and Enforcement Rules if the school for example employs a physician who bills a health plan electronically for the care provided to students (making the school a HIPAA covered entity).

Likewise, the Guidance clarifies that when a student is placed in a private school for the provision of Individualized Education Program (IEP) services on behalf of a school or school district subject to FERPA, the education records of the privately placed student maintained by the private school are subject both to FERPA and to the confidentiality requirements under the IDEA, which incorporate the provisions of FERPA, and not the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The Guidance also states that the U.S. Department of Education is in the process of preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the FERPA regulations to add this provision and will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on this proposed amendment.

Other Additions & Clarifications

While generally continuing their original position of treating at least public educational institutions as subject to FERPA and the IDEA, but exempt from HIPAA in most circumstances, the new Guidance also clarifies and on their original interpretations regarding the interactions and workings of FERPA and the IDEA with HIPAA in various other respects. As part of these changes, the new Guidance incorporates additional frequently asked questions and answers addressing when a student’s health information can be shared without the written consent of the parent or eligible student under FERPA, or without written authorization under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. New clarifications and examples address:

When can protected health information (PHI) or personally identifiable information from an education record (PII) be shared with the parent of an adult student?
What options do family members of an adult student have under HIPAA if they are concerned about the student’s mental health and the student does not agree to disclosures of their PHI?
Does HIPAA allow a covered health care provider to disclose PHI about a minor with a mental health condition or substance use disorder to the minor’s parents?

When can PHI or PII be shared about a student who presents a danger to self or others?
Under FERPA, can an educational agency or institution disclose, without prior written consent, PII from a student’s education records, including health records, to the educational agency’s or institution’s law enforcement officials?

Does FERPA permit an educational agency or institution to disclose, without prior written consent, PII from a student’s education records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)?

While the agencies state the new Guidance is intended “to help address potential confusion on the part of school administrators, health care professionals, and others on how FERPA and HIPAA apply to records maintained on students, like the predecessor 2008 guidance, the new Guidance states it “does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. Instead, it is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.” “Confusion on when records can be shared should not stand in the way of protecting students while they are in school,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. “This update will provide much-needed clarity and help ensure that students get the assistance they need, and school leaders have the information they need to keep students safe.”

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, FERPA, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, Privacy, School, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$1.6M HIPAA Penalty Mostly Due To Inadequate Security Assessment & Oversight

December 16, 2019

The $1.6 million civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) assessed against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (“TX HHSC”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules between 2013 and 2017 committed by a predecessor agency, the Department of Aging and Disability Services (“DADS”) illustrates the critical need for all HIPAA covered entities and business associates to confirm the adequacy of their enterprise wide security assessment, oversight, and other HIPAA Privacy and Security compliance and risk management including documentation of the reassessment and updating of these materials and assessments in connection with any update or change in software, systems or other system and security relevant developments.

OCR imposed the CMPs against TX HHSC for violations of HIPAA OCR found DADS committed from 2015 to 2017, before it was reorganized into TX HHSC in September 2017. Like most other large HIPAA CMPs and settlements paid to avoid CMPs, a review of the TX HSSC CMP events makes clear that the large penalty resulted mostly because of inadequate assessment and oversight of security, rather than the actual breach itself that prompted the investigation leading to the CMP assessment.

Before its merger into TX HHSC, DADS was the Texas agency primarily responsible for providing and administering the state’s long-term care services for aging and intellectually and physically disabled people. TX HHSC now administers and provides the services previously provided by DADS as part of its broader operation of state supported living centers; provision of mental health and substance use services; regulation of child care and nursing facilities; and administration of hundreds of other programs for people needing supplemental nutrition benefits, Medicaid and certain other assistance including those previously provided by DADS.

DADS Breaches & Violations

The $1.6 million CMPs assessment against TX HHSC resulted after OCR investigated a 2015 breach report made by DADS. On June 11, 2015, DADS submitted a Breach Notification Report (“Report”) notifying OCR that on April 21, 2015 names, addresses, social security numbers, treatment information and other electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 6,617 individuals was viewable over the internet when a software coding flaw allowed prohibited access to ePHI with access credentials when DADS moved an internal application from a private, secure server to a public server. OCR’s investigation determined that, in addition to that impermissible disclosure, DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls on Community Living Assistance and Support Services and Deaf Blind with Multiple Disabilities (“CLASS/DBMD”) program information systems and applications intended to collect and report information about “Utilization Management and Review” activities to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for the CLASS/DBMD waiver programs.. The CMS waiver programs required DADS to collect and report to CMS applicant and enrollee community and institutional service choice, Level of Care, Plan of Care, waiver provider choice and other waiver program performance data for CLASS and DBMD as part of a required evidentiary report on all §1915(c) waiver programs. The CLASS/DBMD application glitch compromised the ePHI by allowing an undetermined number of unauthorized users to view the ePHI without verifying user credentials. TX HHSC learned of the breach from an unauthorized user who accessed ePHI in the application without being required to input user credentials. Because of inadequate audit controls, DADS was unable to determine how many unauthorized persons accessed individuals’ ePHI.

OCR initiated a compliance review of DADS on June 23, 2015 in response to the breach notification. As HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. ·§ 164.312(a)(l) requires a covered entity to implement technical policies and procedures for electronic information systems that maintain ePHI to allow access only to those persons or software programs properly granted access rights under HIPAA Security Rule § 164.308(a)(4), OCR found that by placing the CLASS/DBMD application on their public server without requiring users to provide access credentials, TX HHSC violated HIPAA by failing to implement access controls on all of its systems and applications throughout its enterprise in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(a)(l).

The HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) requires a covered entity to implement hardware, software, and/or procedural mechanisms that record and examine activity in information systems that contain or use ePHI. In the course of its investigation, OCR requested in its June 23, 2015 Data Request that DADS provide a copy of its current HIPAA administrative and technical policies and procedures. As DADS provided no evidence that the application was capable of auditing user access after it was moved to the unsecure public server as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b) with its response, OCR also concluded from its investigation that TX HHSC failed to implement audit controls to all of its systems and applications, like the application involved in the breach, as required by 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b).

Beyond these violations, OCR also found that DADS also violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct the required accurate and thorough enterprise wised risk analysis required by the HIPAA Security Rule. In this respect, the HIPAA Security Rule at 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) requires a covered entity to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI it holds. In its August 31, 2015 response to OCR’s Data Request dated July 23, 2015, DADS acknowledged that, while it had performed ”risk assessment activities” on individual applications and servers, it never performed an “agency-wide” security risk analysis. On July 28, 2017, OCR received the documentation that DADS represented to be the documentation of its risk analysis. After reviewing this evidence, OCR additionally found DADS violated the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis and implement access and audit controls.

Calculation & Assessment CMPs Totaling $1.6 Million

On May 23, 2018, OCR issued a Letter of Opportunity and informed TX HHSC that OCR’s investigation indicated that TX HHSC failed to comply with the Privacy and Security Rules, which remained unresolved despite OCR’s attempts to do so. The letter stated that pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.312(a)(3), OCR was informing TX HHSC of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing TX HHSC with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a CMP determination under 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter identified each area of noncompliance. It also stated that TX HHSC also could submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance.

Although the designated representative for TX HHSC as DADS successor received the Letter of Opportunity on May 24, 2018, . TX HHSC did not provide any written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 4S C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making the CMP determination or submit any written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Accordingly, after securing the requisite approval from the Justice Department, OCR issued a Notice of Proposed Determination of Civil Monetary Penalties (“Proposed CMP”) on July 29, 2019.

As explained by the Proposed CMP, as amended by the HITECH Act, Section 13410, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5(a)(3), HIPAA authorizes OCR as the designated representative of the Secretary of HHS to impose CMPs against a covered entity for post-February 18, 2009 HIPAA Privacy or Security Rule violations. These current CMP provisions provide the following rules for the assessment of CMPs for such violations:

A minimum of$100 for each violation where the covered entity or business associate did not know and, by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the covered entity or business associate violated such provision, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.
A minimum of$1,000 for each violation due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $100,000. Reasonable cause means an act or omission in which a covered. entity or business associate knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the act or omission violated an administrative simplification provision, but in which the covered entity or business associate did not act with willful neglect.
A minimum of $10,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and corrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $250,000.
A minimum of$50,000 for each violation due to willful neglect and uncorrected within 30 days, except that the total amount imposed on the covered entity or business associate for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $1,500,000.

By law, OCR adjusts the CMP ranges and calendar year cap for each penalty tier for inflation. The adjusted amounts are applicable only to CMPs whose violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

The Proposed CMP included notice of the CMPs OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million for the violations. Characterizing each of the violations as due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, the Proposed CMP Notice made note that OCR was authorized by statute to assess penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each day of the identified violations due for reasonable cause, rather than willful neglect, but authorized OCR to adjust the penalties in light of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Proposed CMP stated that in arriving at the lesser daily penalty amount, OCR considered as mitigating factors that:

The violations did not result in any known physical, financial, or reputational harm to any individuals nor did it hinder any individual’s ability to obtain health care; and
TX HHSC immediately removed the application once it received a report that unauthorized users could access the ePHI of individual beneficiaries.

However, OCR also took note that it viewed DADS failure to act promptly to remediate the breach and to keep a commitment made to OCR in August, 2015 timely to conduct and complete the agency wide risk analysis by August 31, 2016 as an aggravating factor. Considering these factors, the Proposed CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to assess a daily penalty amount of$1,000 per day ($1,141 after November 2, 2015) per violation capped at $100,000 per calendar year per violation. Applying these amounts, the CMP notified TX HHSC that OCR intended to impose CMPs totaling $1.6 million, as follows:

Impermissible disclosures in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a), a $100,000 CMP
Inadequate access controls in violation of 45 C.F .R. § 164.312(a)(l), a $500,000 CMP
Inadequate audit controls in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b), a $500,000 CMP
Failure to perform required enterprise wide risk analysis in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(l)(ii)(a), a $500,000.

After TX HHSC , as successor to DADS, did not file a request for hearing before an administrative law judge within the 90 days, OCR imposed the $1.6 million CMP in dated October 25, 2019 made public on November 7, 2019.

Lessons For Other Health Care Providers, Health Plans, Clearinghouses & Business Associates

The latest in a growing series of multimillion dollar CMPs and Resolution Payments assessed and collected by OCR, the TX HHSC CMP illustrates the critical necessity for all covered entities and business both to take appropriate, well-documented action to prevent, timely discover and redress, and report ePHI breaches and otherwise comply with the otherwise applicable requirements of the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules including the conduct and continuous maintenance of appropriate enterprise wide security assessments, audits, and oversight. With OCR promising to continue its enforcement, all covered entities and business associates should verify the existence and adequacy of their existing enterprise wide risk assessments and safeguards and procedures for monitoring, investigating potential security risks and other breaches and other HIPAA compliance oversight. Beyond these compliance efforts, the TX HHSC and other CMP actions also drive home the strong advisability for covered entities or business associates that experience a known or potential breach or other violation promptly to investigate and mitigate potential breaches and other violations. As part of these efforts, covered entities and business associates should seek assistance in conducting their assessments as well as responding to any preexisting and emergent breach or other compliance concerns within the scope of attorney-client privilege from qualified legal counsel with the necessary knowledge and experience of HIPAA and other federal and state laws, regulations and administrative and judicial decisions that define and shape their exposure. In the event of a breach or other compliance concern, timely guidance and representation by legal counsel with both experience of these requirements and with dealing with OCR and other agencies may help mitigate exposures by expediting timely and appropriate response.

For More Information

Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Electronic Health Records, ERISA, Fiduciary Responsibility, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Home Health, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Health, occupational health, Privacy, public health, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care | Tagged: Data Breach, Data Security, HIPAA, OCR, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

University of Rochester Medical Center Paying $3 Million For Unencrypted Laptop & Flash Drive

November 6, 2019

$3 million is the hefty price that the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) has agreed to pay to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules arising from the loss of unencrypted laptops and other mobile devices containing protected health information (PHI). Like prior settlements and civil monetary penalties OCR previously assessed against HIPAA-covered entities for using or storing electronic protected health information (ePHI) on unencrypted mobile devices, the $3 million sanction and other requirements imposed in the URMC Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan made public after the close of business on November 5 reaffirm OCR’s readiness to sanction harshly health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and businesses associates for the loss or compromise of ePHI due to the covered entity’s failure to appropriately encrypt mobile devices. Any HIPAA covered entity or business associate that has not already done so must act to avoid a similar fate by establishing and enforcing systematic procedures to ensure all mobile devices using, accessing, storing or otherwise dealing with ePHI are properly encrypted at all times.

URMC Breach & Resolution Agreement

The URMC Resolution Agreement resolves potential charges resulting from an OCR investigation commenced in response to breach reports UMRC filed with OCR in 2013 and 2017. The breach reports disclosed UMRC’s discovery of the impermissible disclosure of PHI through the loss of an unencrypted flash drive and theft of an unencrypted laptop, respectively. URMC includes healthcare components such as the School of Medicine and Dentistry and Strong Memorial Hospital. URMC is one of the largest health systems in New York State with over 26,000 employees.

OCR’s investigation revealed that URMC failed to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis; implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; utilize device and media controls; and employ a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt electronic protected health information (ePHI) when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so. Of note, in 2010, OCR investigated URMC concerning a similar breach involving a lost unencrypted flash drive and provided technical assistance to URMC. Despite the previous OCR investigation, and URMC’s own identification of a lack of encryption as a high risk to ePHI, URMC permitted the continued use of unencrypted mobile devices.

OCR made a point of reaffirming the requirement to encrypt laptops and other mobile devices containing ePHI when announcing the new Resolution Agreement. “Because theft and loss are constant threats, failing to encrypt mobile devices needlessly puts patient health information at risk,” said Roger Severino, OCR Director. “When covered entities are warned of their deficiencies, but fail to fix the problem, they will be held fully responsible for their neglect.”

As part of its punishment for allowing the ePHI breaches by failing to encrypt mobile devices, URMC must pay a $3 million monetary settlement as well as undertake a corrective action plan that includes two years of monitoring their compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

Mobile Device Encryption Requirement Well-Established

OCR repeatedly through published guidance and reported sanctions repeatedly has warned covered entities and business associates not to permit ePHI to be used, accessed or stored on unencrypted laptops or other mobile devices. In 2017, Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (Children’s) paid a $3,217,000.00 Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) after OCR issued its January 18, 2017 Final Determination that Children’s for years knowingly violated HIPAA by failing to encrypt or otherwise properly secure ePHI on laptops and other mobile devices and failing to comply with many other HIPAA requirements. See Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules. An OCR Newsletter Article on Guidance on Mobile Devices and Protected Health Information (PHI), for instance, states:

Entities regulated by the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules (the HIPAA Rules) must be sure to include mobile devices in their enterprise-wide risk analysis and take action(s) to reduce risks identified with the use of mobile devices to a reasonable and appropriate level.
The article also shared insights about some of the steps OCR considers necessary to meet this expectation, as including:

Implement policies for use of mobile devices that are used to handle PHI;
Consider using Mobile Device Management (MDM) software to secure mobile devices;
Install or enable automatic lock/logoff functions;
Require authentication to access devices;
Keep devices’ security features updated;
Procure encryption, anti-virus/anti-malware software, and remote wipe capabilities;
Use a privacy screen to prevent viewing by third-parties;
Assure that Wi-Fi networks used are secure;
Use a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN);
Institute policies regarding downloading third-party apps on devices which access PHI;
Delete all PHI from device before disposing of; and
Provide training on secure use of mobile devices for all employees.

Covered entities and business associates should promptly and continuously act to ensure on a systematic and carefully documented basis that their organization is taking these and and other steps necessary to ensure that all mobile device with ePHI are always appropriately encrypted.

We hope this information was helpful. For more information about HIPAA or other related concerns, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates and join discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group and registering for updates on our Solutions Law Press Website.

About the Author

As a primary focus of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, Vice Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is noted for her decades-long leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. This involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her services, experience and involvements, e-mail Ms. Stamer here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or see here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides legal risk management and compliance, business strategy and operations, management, leadership and other publications, coaching, , training and education tools and other resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, we invite you to register to receive other updates and review our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data security, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, medical devices, Medical Privacy, NIST, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: cyber cybersecurity, Data Breach, Data Privacy, HIPAA, medical, patient | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Jackson Health System Nailed With $2.15 Million Plus Penalty For Violating HIPAA

October 23, 2019

Jackson Health System (JHS) has paid a heavy price for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security and Breach Notification Rules between 2013 and 2016.

The $2,154,000 civil monetary penalty the Miami, Florida-based nonprofit academic medical system paid to the Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to settle OCR charges it violated the HIPAA Security & Breach Notifications= Rules makes clear the urgent need for other health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates to verify the adequacy of their organizations with HIPAA’s privacy, security and breach notification rules currently and on an ongoing basis.

The $2.1 million plus payment was required to satisfy a civil monetary penalty assessment OCR imposed in a Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination made public by OCR on October 23, 2019 in response to findings from a series of investigations of HIPAA breach and compliance concerns raised between 2013 and 2016 raised by various HIPAA-mandated breach reports and media reports that raised concerns about improper access disclosure and use of patient PHI between 2013 and 2016. When JHS did not challenge the findings or determination became final. OCR reports JHS has paid the specified $2.154,000 civil monetary penalties.

JHS HIPAA Violations Found By OCR

JHS operates six major hospitals, a network of urgent care centers, multiple primary care and specialty care centers, long-term care nursing facilities, and corrections health services clinics, provides health services to approximately 650,000 patients annually, and employs about 12,000 individuals. The OCR investigation stemmed from a series of breach and media reports spanning several years and revealed a host of long standing violations of long-standing HIPAA requirements and a failure to accurately disclose or correct those or other violations of a nature that likely continue to exist in many health care systems and other covered entities.

On August 22, 2013, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR stating that its Health Information Management Department lost paper records containing the protected health information (PHI) of 756 patients in January 2013. JHS’s internal investigation determined that an additional three boxes of patient records also were lost in December 2012; however, JHS did not report the additional loss or the increased number of individuals affected to 1,436, until June 7, 2016.

In July 2015, OCR initiated an investigation following a media report that disclosed the PHI of a JHS patient. A reporter had shared a photograph of a JHS operating room screen containing the patient’s medical information on social media. JHS subsequently determined that two employees had accessed this patient’s electronic medical record without a job-related purpose.

On February 19, 2016, JHS submitted a breach report to OCR reporting that an employee had been selling patient PHI. The employee had accessed inappropriately over 24,000 patients’ records since 2011.

According to OCR Director Roger Severino, “OCR’s investigation revealed a HIPAA compliance program that had been in disarray for a number of years. …This hospital system’s compliance program failed to detect and stop an employee who stole and sold thousands of patient records; lost patient files without notifying OCR as required by law; and failed to properly secure PHI that was leaked to the media.”

These and other findings led to the OCR determination in the Notice of Proposed Determination and Notice of Final Determination that JHS failed to provide timely and accurate breach notification to the Secretary of HHS, conduct enterprise-wide risk analyses, manage identified risks to a reasonable and appropriate level, regularly review information system activity records, and restrict authorization of its workforce members’ access to patient ePHI to the minimum necessary to accomplish their job duties. OCR assessed the $2.1 million civil monetary penalty based on these determinations.

Lessons For Other Health Providers & HIPAA Covered Entities Likely Similarly Exposed

The JHS civil monetary penalty is the latest in a growing series of OCR enforcement and regulatory actions that drive home the perils HIPAA-covered health care, health plan, healthcare clearinghouse and business associates risk by failing to responsibly and effectively manage their HIPAA compliance. A review of the available JHS record reveals that like all too many HIPAA-covered entities, JHS never adequately implemented appropriate measures to operationally comply with many of the original HIPAA requirements and perpetuated those deficiencies despite the series of breaches. Sadly, many other health care systems and other HIPAA-covered entities are subject to the same practices. Failing to address these compliance issues makes these non-compliant entities susceptible to the same type of enforcement and other liabilities that JHS now has experienced.

OCR enforcement data documents a steady rise in OCR investigation and enforcement activity. OCR set all-time records for HIPAA Enforcement in 2018. Heavy enforcement activity has continued in 2019. Before its October 23, 2019 announcement of the JHS civil monetary penalties, OCR already had announced:

A $10,000 resolution agreement with a dental practice for improperly disclosing patient PHI on social media at the beginning of October;
Its first HIPAA right of access resolution agreement against a health care provider for violating HIPAA’s right of access rules on September 9, 2019 as part of its recently announced HIPAA access rule enforcement initiative;
A $100,000 resolution payment from an Indiana Medical Records Service resulting from a breach of electronic protected health information at a business associate;
The collection of a $3 million resolution payment collected from a Tennessee diagnostic medical imaging services company to settle HIPAA civil monetary penalty exposures arising from a breach that exposed the protected health information of more than 300,000 patients; and
A multitude of other audits and enforcement activities resolved through corrective action without collection of any resolution payment or civil monetary penalties.

Given these and other previously announced enforcement initiatives and actions, all HIPAA covered entities and their business associates are urged to maintain hyper-vigilance about their own HIPAA compliance with long standing as well as emerging HIPAA requirements taking into account old, recent, and emerging guidance and enforcement activities of OCR. Given the almost certain discovery or discussion of known or uncovered compliance concerns and other sensitive information, covered entities are cautioned that these activities generally should be undertaken under the guidance of an experienced attorney within the scope of attorney client privilege.

For More Information

About the Author

Author of leading works on HIPAA and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Conditions of Participation, continuing medical education (CME), Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Discrimination, Doctor, Employer, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, hospitals, Immigration, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medical Privacy, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Psychiatric, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

IRS Proposes Easing Disclosure Requirements For Certain Tax-Exempt Entities

October 9, 2019

December 10, 2019 is the deadline for charitable and other tax-exempt organizations to comment on proposed regulations the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) intends to use to implement clarify the reporting requirements generally applicable to tax-exempt organizations as they apply to returns filed after September 6, 2019.

The proposed regulations officially published by the IRS in the September 10, 2019 Federal Register implement changes in response to various statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced by the Treasury Department and the IRS in prior guidance to help many tax-exempt organizations generally find the reporting requirements in one place. Among other provisions, the proposed regulations incorporate the existing exception from having to file an annual return for certain organizations that normally have gross receipts of $50,000 or less, which is found in Revenue Procedure 2011-15.

In addition, the proposed regulations also reissue relief for certain tax-exempt entities from requirements to report contributor names and addresses on annual returns filed by certain tax-exempt organizations. Originally announced last year in Revenue Procedure 2018-38, the relief was invalidated by a district court ruling that the Treasury Department and the IRS failed to follow required notice and comment procedures. Under the proposed regulations, filing requirements for Section 501(c)(3) organizations and Section 527 political organizations remain unchanged, and all organizations are required to keep the contributor information and make it available to the IRS upon request.

Additionally, the IRS issued Notice 2019-47 (PDF) providing penalty relief for certain exempt organizations that, consistent with the 2018 guidance from the IRS, do not report the names and addresses of contributors on annual returns for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, but on or before July 30, 2019.

Need more information or help evaluating or responding to this or developments? Contact the author licensed attorney experienced in FDA and other health care and other regulatory affairs matters.

About the Author

In these and other legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications, Ms. Stamer When working with these and other clients, Ms. Stamer merges a talent for creative problem solving with her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience to help her clients develop and use legally defensible, pragmatic, client-centric law, performance and risk management tools and processes to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, risk and other operational needs on a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced general, operations, regulatory affairs or other special counsel capacity on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis. Her clients have included domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients.

Her involvement encompasses helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, discipline and defend sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement; and other strategic and operational concerns.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Conditions of Participation, continuing medical education (CME), Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Discrimination, Doctor, Employer, Employment law, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Form 990, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Home Health, Hospital, hospitals, Immigration, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Labor Law, Laws, Life Sciences, Medical Privacy, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Psychiatric, Rural Health Care, Section 1557, Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Tax, Tax-Exemption, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Important Lessons For Health Care Providers From Michigan State Settlement Of OCR Larry Nassar Sexual Abuse Investigation

August 12, 2019

Health care providers should review and tighten their policies and practices for conducting therapies or other procedures on children and other procedures on any patient involving the exposure of the breasts, genitalia or rectum where a patient is fully or partially disrobed as well as sexual assault, abuse and harassment policies and procedures in light of a resolution agreement between the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University (“MSU”) d/b/a Michigan State University and MSU HealthTeam (“MSU HealthTeam”) and MSU Health Care, Inc. (“MSU Health Care”) announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) arising from a civil rights compliance review OCR initiated after federal and state criminal investigations found that an osteopathic physician Larry Nassar sexually abused gymnasts and others while employed as an associate professor by MSU.

OCR opened a compliance review of MSU to determine if its doctors’ offices and clinics violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”) after federal and state criminal investigations found Nassar sexually abused hundreds of women and girls under his care over decades while an associate professor at MSU.

Considered alone or in conjunction with the growing awareness and concern fueled by the #me too movement, widespread publicity about the sexual misconduct of Nassar alleged Bill Cosby, billionaire Jeffrey Einstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial last Saturday and others, and OCR’s reaffirmation of its commitment to vigorously enforce civil rights laws in connection with its May 24, 2019 proposal of changes to its Section 1557 implementing regulations, the Resolution Agreement sends a strong signal to health care organizations and individual physician and other health care providers of the advisability of proactively preventing and managing their exposure to potential sexual abuse, assault and harassment complaints brought by patients, caregivers, employees and others.

The OCR investigation that led to the Resolution Agreement arose from a compliance review OCR started after Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 125 years in prison on February 5, 2018, after entering a guilty plea to seven counts of felony criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Eaton County, Michigan. He also has been convicted to various other federal and state sexual offenses. Additionally, the former dean of MSU’s College of Osteopathic Medicine, William Strampel, was convicted of felony misconduct stemming from a charge that he used his public office to sexually harass students and a separate charge of willfully neglecting to monitor Nassar after an earlier investigation.

Title IX and Section 1557 are two of a multitude of federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination enforced by OCR, Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally assisted education programs or activities while Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age and disability in certain health programs or activities.

The Resolution Agreement resolves potential additional enforcement action by OCR against MSU arising from the investigation commenced in response to the Nassar convictions as well as enforcement actions OCR had initiated against the MSU Entities for failing to comply with an earlier OCR resolution agreement.

In return for OCR’s agreement to close its investigation, the Resolution Agreement requires the MSU Entities to implement specific procedures for conducting examinations and procedures involving children as well as procedures and therapies conduct on patients of any age and gender s where the patient is disrobed, in full or in part, and there is exposure of the breasts, genitalia or rectum (“sensitive examinations”) as well as strengthen its other policies, notices and practices impacting the prevention, investigation and redress of sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and other sex discrimination against patients, staff, employees and others.

Notably, to help safeguard patients from future sexual assault or abuse, the Resolution Agreement requires the MSU Entities to adopt, communicate to patients and staff and enforce specific policies patient privacy, chaperones and informed consent and patient privacy including

Requiring that staff always follow Universal Precautions with conducting “sensitive examinations,” which the Resolution Agreement defines as “procedures or therapies where the Patient is disrobed, in full or in part, and there is exposure of the breasts, genitalia or rectum);
Require that staff provide the patient with: an explanation of the required examination, procedure or therapy before beginning the procedure and secure informed consent from the patient or if the patient lacks decision making capacity, the consent of the patient’s guardian before conducting any sensitive examination;
Always honor the Patient’s request to have a parent, relative or friend present as a support person present during any sensitive examination;
Requiring a chaperone for all sensitive examinations;
For sensitive examinations of patients of 10 years of age or greater that the chaperone be an authorized member of the health care team and in other cases allow patients and/or their parent or other support person, as well as providers to request a chaperone at any time;
Require that physical examinations of an infant, toddler or child always be performed in the presence of a patient or guardian unless the parent or guardian or, if the parent is unavailable or in situations involving suspected abuse, mental health or other instances where the parental presence would interfere with the examination, another member of the health care team;
Require the use of a chaperone for sensitive examinations be documented in the patient record or where a patient declines or refuses a chaperone for an examination where one is required, require that the provider document the offer and its declination in the record and have the patient or guardian sign a waiver;
Always honor a patient’s request to have a chaperone present even when the patient also has a support person present when conducting a sensitive examination; and
Allow the patient’s wishes and comfort to determine the sex of the chaperone and accommodate, to the extent practicable, a patient’s request for a same sex chaperone

Moreover, the Resolution Agreement also dictates that the MSU Entities ensure that staff always provide patients undergoing sensitive examinations with an appropriate gown, privacy for undressing and dressing, and sensitive draping to maximize physical privacy.

In addition to these specified required procedures for the actual conduct of sensitive medical examinations, the Resolution Agreement also requires that the MSU Entities significantly strengthen their policies, notifications, procedures, and training regarding sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sex discrimination including to:

Revise their existing non-discrimination notices and sexual misconduct policies to clarify Title IX’s and Section 1557’s prohibitions against sex discrimination, including sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual abuse and sexual assault, against men and women;
In the revised non-discrimination notices and sexual misconduct policies clearly communicate that patient, staff or individuals who believe they are victims of sexual harassment, abuse, assault or other sexual harassment are “encouraged” to report their concerns to the designated MSU Entities’ Title IX and Section 1557 compliance team, the MSU police and OCR and explains the procedures for making those reports;
Conspicuously post and distribute the revised nondiscrimination and sexual misconduct policy notices which clearly communicate the clarified non-discrimination and sexual harassment policies;
Improve their processes for notifying students, staff, patients and others about reporting and for investigating and resolving Title IX and Section 1557 complaints (including for MSU-students, non-MSU-student patients, faculty and staff) including specific requirements concerning reporting to and coordination between MSU Entities’ compliance staff and law enforcement;
Designate a responsible official to coordinate the acceptance, investigation and resolution of Title IX and Section 1557 complaints;
Conduct all-staff training, planning and coordination between MSU Entities’ compliance and investigation teams and law enforcement, and provide bi-annual reports to OCR during the three year term of the agreement;
Require that all grievances or complaints alleging sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or other sex discrimination filed by any patient, staff or other individual related to the MSU Health Team, be reviewed and investigated by, or under the supervision of, a dedicated independent health care investigator approved by OCR, who MSU may only terminate for cause with OCR’s consent.

While neither exhaustive nor binding on any other health care providers, the conditions (CR imposed against MSU under the Resolution Agreement are concrete steps other health care organizations and providers, academic institutions and other organizations and individuals at risk of claims directly or vicariously should consider using as part of their efforts to prevent and defend themselves against potential exposures to sexual misconduct charges.

With the #metoo movement and other widespread media coverage of the Nassar, Jeffery Epstein, Bill Cosby and other sex scandals fueling growing awareness and discussion about sexual abuse, assault and harassment, physicians and other individual health care providers as well as the health care systems, clinics and other health industry organizations, educational institutions and businesses generally face heightened risks of accusations by patients, caregivers, employees, and others of sexual misconduct. Whether founded in fact, hypersensitivity, or independent agenda, recent history proves the potentially financially costly civil judgments or settlements, as well as career if not freedom ending consequences health care providers and institutions if unable to defend these claims. In addition to the criminal sentences imposed upon Nassar and, for instance, MSU previous entered into a civil settlement with more than 300 alleged victims of 332 women and girls who alleged they were Nassar sexual assault victims. See MSU reaches $500M settlement with Nassar victims. This huge civil liability and the fact that MSU accepteed it rather than risk a potential jury verdict reflects the significance of the this liability risk.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Health IT Provider Pays $100K To OCR For Breach After No HIPAA Risk Assessment

May 24, 2019

The $100,000 payment Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. (MIE) has agreed to pay under a just-announced HIPAA Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“MIE Agreement”) with an Indiana health care information technology provider sends a clear warning to health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities””) and their business associate service providers (“business associates”)(collectively (“HIPAA entities”)to ensure they can prove they properly conduct and update documented security risk assessments verifying their systems adequately meet the medical data privacy security requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) or be prepared to pay when a breach happens.

Coming less than a month after the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced its collection of a $3 million settlement payment from a radiology provider that also allowed hackers to breach its electronic protected health information (ePHI) by failing to conduct and respond to HIPAA-required risk assessments, OCR’s announcement late yesterday of the MIE Agreement makes clear that HIPAA entities need to tighten their HIPAA risk assessment, documentation and other compliance practices.

The latest in a lengthening list of OCR enforcement actions identifying as a key violation the failure to maintain up to date risk assessments, the MIE Agreement between OCR and the Indiana based provider of software and electronic medical record services to healthcare providers resulted from an OCR investigation of MIE’s July 23, 2015 breach report that hackers had used a compromised user ID and password to access the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of approximately 3.5 million people. OCR’s investigation revealed that MIE did not conduct a comprehensive risk analysis prior to the breach. To avoid potential prosecution by OCR for the breach, MIE agrees in the MIE Agreement to pay $100,000 to OCR, as well as to conduct a complete enterprise wide HIPAA risk assessment, to periodically update that risk assessment in accordance with the HIPAA rules and take other corrective actions to avoid potential prosecution by OCR for alleged violations of HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules.

Coming less than a month after OCR’s collection of a $3 million HIPAA resolution penalty from medical imaging provider Touchstone Medical Imaging where failure to conduct regular risk assessments was also identified as a violation, OCR’s announcement of the MIE Agreement sends a clear warning to other HIPAA covered entities and business associates not to make the same mistake. “Entities entrusted with medical records must be on guard against hackers,” said OCR Director Roger Severino. “The failure to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities to ePHI opens the door to breaches and violates HIPAA.”

While the HIPAA Security Rules always have included and OCR’s high dollar enforcement actions consistently demonstrate the need to meet their obligation to conduct documented comprehensive enterprise risk assessments and to update those assessments on an ongoing basis in response to changes in systems, software, participants or other events creating the potential for threats to the security of ePHI and the systems that include them, most HIPAA entities fail to adequate appreciate the scope of this responsibility or the steps OCR expects them to take to fulfill this expectation. Meanwhile, litigation and enforcement records resulting from heath care and other data breaches under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and other federal and state privacy and data security rules also show the value and need for excellent, well-documented risk assessment and mitigation response to mitigate breach and other exposures.

While clearly necessary and valuable establishing appropriate requirements and processes for ensuring the conduct and documentation of these required assessments, managing the compliance and risks resulting from their findings, documenting this analysis and other actions needed while also balancing other operational, legal, and financial challenges is complex and challenging. The legally, operationally and politically sensitive discussions require both management of compliance and risks arising from the administration of these responsibilities themselves and the dealing with vendors, patients, other providers and payers and the community make it highly advisable that management of HIPAA Entities involve experienced legal counsel throughout the process to utilize legal advice and attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary tools to help safeguard sensitive discussions in the course of this process and manage other risks.

If have questions or need more information about the risk assessment or other HIPAA requirements or other health care regulatory developments or their implications on your organization, contact the author. You also are invited to stay abreast of these and other health care developments by participating in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s legal, management, governmental affairs work and speaking and publications have focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, her involvement in assisting clients with HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns pre-dates the enactment of HIPAA and arises from her career-long health and managed care and insurance industry work.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health facilities and systems; physicians, physician practices, and other health care providers; medical staff, and other provider organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; health care and insurance accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services, electronic medical record and other health information technology (IT) organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management providers and organizations; health and insurance industry consultants, investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors and developers; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors;; and other health industry clients as well as a diverse array of other business and government entities. Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with operational compliance and risk management; strategic planning; product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management: crisis preparedness and response; public and regulatory affairs and host of other concerns.

As part of this work, Ms. Stamer continuously advises clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. She helps clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Medicare and other HHS, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, Insurance and other licensing agencies, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, Department of Labor, IRS, DOD, FTC, SEC, and other federal and state agencies; attorneys’ generals; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and others investigation and enforcement entities and actions. Her experience includes advising, representing and defending these and other clients about risk management and compliance, breach and other liability investigation, mitigation and defense; contracting; process and product development, assessment, implementation and audit; contracting; commenting or seeking modification of legislation and regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other projects and concerns.

Ms. Stamer also helps health industry, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other private payer and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer also continuously works with a diverse array of clients to monitor, shape and respond to federal and state legislative, regulatory, enforcement and other public policy and regulatory affairs concerns. This work involves a steady diet of involvement with Congress, federal regulators and state legislative, regulatory and enforcement bodies dealing with cutting edge health and insurance legislation, regulation and enforcement throughout her 30 year career.

Author of leading works on a multitude of these and other concerns, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, and Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Labor and Employment Law, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or experience publications, speaking, public advocacy or other involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here including:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, home health, Hospital, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, OCR, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Year-End $3 Million HIPAA Settlement Pushes 2018 OCR HIPAA Recoveries Over $28 Million; Act Promptly To Strengthen Compliance & Share Ideas For Simplification

February 7, 2019

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouse and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) should reconfirm the adequacy of their organization’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) compliance in light the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) February 7, 2019 announcement that OCR reached a 2018 year-end $3 Million Resolution Agreement with California-based Cottage Health that pushed OCR’s already record-setting 2018 enforcement HIPAA recoveries to more than $28.7 million in a year already distinguished by OCR’s record-setting $16 million resolution payment collection from Anthem.

Along with acting to ensure their own organization’s ability to defend their HIPAA compliance, Covered Entities and their leaders also should take advantage of the opportunity to provide input to OCR on opportunities for simplifying and improving OCR’s HIPAA regulations and enforcement by submitting relevant comments by February 12, 2019 in response to a Request for Information published by OCR in December that invites public input.

Learn more de

2018 Cottage Health Resolution Agreement

According to OCR’s February 7, 2019 announcement, Cottage Health agreed in OCR’s final settlement of 2017 to pay OCR $3 million and to adopt a substantial corrective action plan to settle charges of HIPAA violations resulting from OCR’s investigations into two HIPAA Breach notifications Cottage Health filed regarding breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI) affecting over 62,500 individuals.

A December 2, 2013 breach notification that the removal of electronic security protections by a Cottage Health contractor rendered ePHI such as patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses/conditions, lab results and other treatment information of 33,349 individuals on a Cottage Health server accessible for download without a username or password from the internet to anyone outside Cottage Health. In an update to its original report filed on July 2, 2014, Cottage Health increased the number of individuals affected by this breach to 50,917. OCR’s investigation determined that security configuration settings of the Windows operating system permitted access to files containing ePHI without requiring a username and password. As a result, patient names, addresses, dates of birth, diagnoses, conditions, lab results and other treatment information were available to anyone with access to Cottage Health’s server.
A December 1, 2015, that the misconfiguration of a server following an IT response to a troubleshooting ticket, exposed unsecured ePHI including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, diagnoses, conditions, and other treatment information of 11,608 individuals over the internet.

Based upon its investigation into the two breach reports, OCR concluded Cottage Health violated HIPAA by failing to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the ePHI; failed to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; failed to perform periodic technical and non-technical evaluations in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI; and failed to obtain a written business associate agreement with a contractor that maintained ePHI on its behalf.

To resolve its exposure to potentially must greater civil monetary sanctions that OCR might seek for such potential violations under HIPAA’s civil monetary sanction rules, Cottage Health entered into December, 2018 Resolution Agreement to pay the $3 million settlement and undertake what OCR characterizes as “a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.” Among other things, the corrective action plan requires Cottage Health to:

Conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI held by Cottage Health (“Risk Analysis”) that OCR views as satisfactory to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
Develop and implement a risk management plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities identified in the Risk Analysis acceptable to OCR;
Implement a process for regularly evaluating environmental and operational changes that affect the security of Cottage Health’s ePHI;
Develop, maintain, and revise, as necessary, written policies and procedures to comply with the Federal standards that govern the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information under 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A, C, and E of Part 164 (the “Privacy Rule” and “Security Rule”).
Distribute to and conduct training on the HIPAA policies and procedures from all existing and new members of the Cottage Health workforce with access to PHI. Additionally, Cottage Health require all workforce members that have access to PHI to certify their receipt of, understanding and commitment to comply with the HIPAA Policies before allowing access to PHI and must deny access to PHI to any workforce member that has not provided the required certification.
Submit to ongoing notification and reporting requirements to keep OCR informed about its compliance efforts.

2018 Record Setting HIPAA Enforcement Year

The final Resolution Agreement negotiated by OCR in 2018, the $3 million Cottage Health Resolution Agreement signed on December 11, 2018 added to an already record-setting year of HIPAA enforcement recoveries by OCR. In addition to recovering the single largest individual HIPAA settlement in history of $16 million with Anthem, Inc. OCR’s recovery of the following HIPAA settlements and fines totaling nearly $28.7 million surpassed its previous 2016 record of $23.5 million by 22 percent.

Date	Name	Amount
Jan. 2018	Filefax, Inc (settlement)	$ 100,000
Jan. 2018	Fresenius Medical Care North America (settlement)	$ 3,500,000
June 2018	MD Anderson (judgment)	$ 4,348,000
Aug. 2018	Boston Medical Center (settlement)	$ 100,000
Sep. 2018	Brigham and Women’s Hospital (settlement)	$ 384,000
Sep. 2018	Massachusetts General Hospital (settlement)	$ 515,000
Sep. 2018	Advanced Care Hospitalists (settlement)	$ 500,000
Oct. 2018	Allergy Associates of Hartford (settlement)	$ 125,000
Oct. 2018	Anthem, Inc (settlement)	$ 16,000,000
Nov. 2018	Pagosa Springs (settlement)	$ 111,400
Dec. 2018	Cottage Health (settlement)	$ 3,000,000
Total (settlements and judgment)		$ 28,683,400

Aside from the previously discussed Cottage Health Resolution Agreement OCR announced on February 7, 2019, these OCR 2018 enforcement recoveries included:

FileFax Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR settled for $100,000 with Filefax, Inc., a medical records maintenance, storage, and delivery services provider. OCR’s investigation found that Filefax impermissibly disclosed protected health information (PHI) by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the Filefax parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from Filefax, and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the Filefax facility.
Fresenius Medical Care North America Resolution Agreement. In January 2018, OCR also settled for $3.5 million with Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA), a provider of products and services for people with chronic kidney failure. FMCNA filed five breach reports for separate incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012, implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five FMCNA owned covered entities. OCR’s investigation revealed that FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. Additional potential violations included failure to implement policies and procedures and failure to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
MD Anderson ALJ Ruling. In June 2018, an HHS Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of OCR and required The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson), a Texas cancer center, to pay $4.3 million in civil money penalties for HIPAA violations. OCR investigated MD Anderson following three separate data breach reports in 2012 and 2013 involving the theft of an unencrypted laptop from the residence of an MD Anderson employee and the loss of two unencrypted universal serial bus (USB) thumb drives containing the unencrypted ePHI of over 33,500 individuals. OCR’s investigation found that MD Anderson had written encryption policies going back to 2006 and that MD Anderson’s own risk analyses had found that the lack of device-level encryption posed a high risk to the security of ePHI. Despite the encryption policies and high risk findings, MD Anderson did not begin to adopt an enterprise-wide solution to encrypt ePHI until 2011, and even then it failed to encrypt its inventory of electronic devices containing ePHI between March 24, 2011 and January 25, 2013. This matter is under appeal with the HHS Departmental Appeals Board.
MMC/BWH/MGH Resolution Agreements. In September 2018, OCR announced that it has reached separate settlements totaling $999,000, with Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for compromising the privacy of patients’ PHI by inviting film crews on premises to film an ABC television network documentary series, without first obtaining authorization from patients.
ACH Resolution Agreement. In September 2018, OCR also settled with Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH), a contractor physician group, for $500,000. ACH filed a breach report confirming that ACH patient information was viewable on a medical billing services’ website. OCR’s investigation revealed that ACH never had a business associate agreement with the individual providing medical billing services to ACH, and failed to adopt any policy requiring business associate agreements until April 2014. Although ACH had been in operation since 2005, it had not conducted a risk analysis or implemented security measures or any other written HIPAA policies or procedures before 2014.
Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, OCR settled with Allergy Associates, a health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies, for $125,000. In February 2015, a patient of Allergy Associates contacted a local television station to speak about a dispute that had occurred between the patient and an Allergy Associates’ doctor. OCR’s investigation found that the reporter subsequently contacted the doctor for comment and the doctor impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI to the reporter.
Anthem Resolution Agreement. In October 2018, Anthem, Inc. also paid $16 million to OCR and agreed to take substantial corrective action to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Rules after a series of cyberattacks led to the largest U.S. health data breach in history. Anthem filed a breach report after discovering cyber-attackers had gained access to their IT system via an undetected continuous and targeted cyberattack for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing their breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.
Pegosa Springs Medical Center. In November 2018, Pagosa Springs Medical Center (PSMC), a critical access hospital, paid $111,400 to OCR to resolve potential violations concerning a former PSMC employee that continued to have remote access to PSMC’s web-based scheduling calendar, which contained patients’ ePHI, after separation of employment. OCR’s investigation revealed that PSMC impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 557 individuals to its former employee and to the web-based scheduling calendar vendor without a business associate agreement in place.

These 2018 Resolution Agreements reaffirm the growing risks that Covered Entities and their business associates run by failing to take adequate steps to prevent and respond to breaches of ePHI and otherwise to maintain their compliance with HIPAA. Covered entities and business associates and their leaders should recognize and respond to these growing risks by reevaluating and strengthening their HIPAA compliance and risk management efforts to minimize the likelihood of violations and enhance their ability to mitigate potential liability that can result from breaches of HIPAA by responding efficiently and effectively.

Other Regulatory & Enforcement Developments

In addition to reaffirming their ongoing compliance with the longstanding requirements of HIPAA and other related federal and state laws, Covered Entities also should use care to carefully monitor and respond to new regulatory and other developments that might create new responsibilities or new opportunities to simplify their HIPAA compliance. In this respect, Covered Entities should take note of the 2018 and ongoing efforts by OCR to develop and publish new rules and other guidance intended to help health care providers and other Covered Entities, patients and caregivers and others understand their rights and responsibilities when dealing with protected health information in relation to patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness. Undertaken as part of the Trump Administration’s broader effort to combat opiate and other substance abuse within the United States, OCR in October published a package of guidance on How HIPAA Allows Doctors To Respond To The Opioid Crisis. Covered Entities and others concerned with the management of patients afflicted with substance abuse and mental illness should evaluate this guidance to understand and tailor their practices to respond to OCR’s perspectives of how HIPAA impacts the use, access and disclosure of protected health information as part of these efforts.

Covered Entities and others concerned about HIPAA compliance and interpretation also should carefully monitor and provide appropriate and timely input on developing HIPAA guidance that could impact their operations. In this regard, Covered Entities with ideas about opportunities for improving existing HIPAA guidance are encouraged to submit comments to OCR by February 12, 2019 in response to its Request for Information on improving care coordination and reducing the regulatory burdens of the HIPAA Rules published on December 12, 2018. In that RFI, OCR invites input from the public on how the HIPAA Privacy Rule, could be modified to:

Encourage information-sharing for treatment and care coordination;
Facilitate parental involvement in care;
Address the opioid crisis and serious mental illness;
Account for disclosures of PHI for treatment, payment, and health care operations as required by the HITECH Act;
Change the current requirement for certain providers to make a good faith effort to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice of Privacy Practices; and/or
Otherwise simplify or improve the existing HIPAA rules.

As a part of these efforts, Covered Entities and other concerned parties also should anticipate that OCR will be focusing heavily in the upcoming year on the potential HIPAA privacy and security implications of efforts by its sister agency, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”), to promote greater interoperability of electronic medical records discussed in ONC’s recent 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave ONC authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end-user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden. The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. While the Report states ONC intends to move forward to promote efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans, these activities inherently will raise many HIPAA concerns and challenges. Covered Entities and others concerned with these activities will want to carefully monitor the concurrent activities of OCR and ONC as these efforts progress, both to help tailor their planning and compliance efforts to respond to the anticipated demand for greater interoperability as required by ONC and to help shape these rules by providing timely input as appropriate in response to these developments.

About the Author

Scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues.

Ms. Stamer’s clients include public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, and change management; workforce and operations management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of their operations.

Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long-term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about contracting, credentialing and quality assurance, compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Author of works on Payer and Provider Contracting and many other managed care concerns, Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2019. Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | 21st century cures act, Academic medicine, ADA, ASC, Consumer Driven Health Care, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, Direct Primary Care, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, Evidence Based Medicine, FACTA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Joint Commission, Laws, legal epidemiology, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, NIOSH, NIST, OCR, Opiates, Outpatient, participating provider, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Provider contracting, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, quality repoting, Reimbursement, research, Skilled Nursing Facility, Substance Abuse, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Health Care, Health IT, Medicare, ONC, Physician | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

ONC Report Signals New Interoperability Demands Coming

January 8, 2019

Interoperability will be a key priority for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) going forward.

That’s the message in the just released 2018 Report to Congress: Annual Update on the Adoption of a Nationwide System for the Electronic Use and Exchange of Health Information (“Report”).

The plan to promote interoperability raises new business and compliance planning opportunities for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others.

The Report describes barriers, actions taken, and recommendations as well as ONC’s path forward to implement the 21st Century Cures Act.

Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress gave HHS authority to enhance innovation, scientific discovery, and expand the access and use of health information through provisions related to:

The development and use of upgraded health IT capabilities;
Transparent expectations for data sharing, including through open application programming interfaces (APIs); and
Improvement of the health IT end user experience, including by reducing administrative burden.

These priorities seek to increase nationwide interoperability of health information and reduce clinician burden..

Current Status

The Report says increases in the adoption of health IT means most Americans receiving health care services now have their health data recorded electronically. However, this information is not always accessible across systems and by all end users—such as patients, health care providers, and payers—in the market in productive ways. For example:

Despite the individual right to access health information about themselves established by the HIPAA Privacy Rule, patients often lack access to their own health information, which hinders their ability to manage their health and shop for medical care at lower prices;

Health care providers often lack access to patient data at the point of care, particularly when multiple health care providers maintain different pieces of data, own different systems, or use health IT solutions purchased from different developers; and

Payers often lack access to clinical data on groups of covered individuals to assess the value of services provided to their customers.

The Report says these limitations create several problems, including:

Patients should be able to easily and securely access their medical data through their smartphones. Currently, patients electronically access their health information through patient portals that prevent them from easily pulling from multiple sources or health care providers. Patient access to their electronic health information also requires repeated use of logins and manual data updates.

For health care providers and payers, interoperable access and exchange of health records is focused on accessing one record at a time.
Payers cannot effectively represent their members if they lack computational visibility into which health care providers offer the highest quality care at the lowest cost. Without the capability to access multiple records across a population of patients, health care providers and payers will not benefit from the value of using modern computing solutions—such as machine learning and artificial intelligence—to inform care decisions and identify trends.
Payers and employer group health plans which purchase health care have little information on health outcomes. Often, health care providers and payers negotiate contracts based on the health care provider’s reputation rather than on the quality of care that health care provider offers to patients. Health care providers should instead compete based on the entire scope of the quality and value of care they provide, not on how exclusively they can craft their networks. Outcome data will allow payers to apply machine learning and artificial intelligence to have better insight into the value of the care they purchase.

Current Barriers

According to the Report, HHS heard from stakeholders over the past year that barriers to interoperable access to health information remain, including technical, financial, trust, and business practice barriers. These barriers impede the movement of health information to where it is needed across the care continuum. In addition, burden arising from quality reporting, documentation, administrative, and billing requirements that prescribe how health IT systems are designed also hamper the innovative usability of health IT.

Current and Upcoming Actions

The Report states HHS has many efforts to help ensure that electronic health information can be shared safely and securely where appropriate to improve the health and care of all Americans.

ONC also reports Federal agencies, states, and industry have taken steps to address technical, trust, and financial challenges to interoperable health information access, exchange, and use for patients, health care providers, and payers (including insurers). HHS aims to build on these successes through the ONC Health IT Certification Program, HHS rulemaking, health IT innovation projects, and health IT coordination.

In accordance with the Cures Act, HHS is actively leading and coordinating a number of key programs and projects. These include continued work to deter and penalize poor business practices and that HHS conducted multiple outreach efforts to engage the clinical community and health IT stakeholders to better understand these barriers, challenges, and health care provider burden.

Recommendations

The Report makes the following overarching recommendations for future actions HHS plans to support through its policies and that the health IT community as a whole can take to accelerate progress:

Focus on improving interoperability and upgrading technical capabilities of health IT, so patients can securely access, aggregate, and move their health information using their smartphones (or other devices) and health care providers can easily send, receive, and analyze patient data.

Increase transparency in data sharing practices and strengthen technical capabilities of health IT so payers can access population-level clinical data to promote economic transparency and operational efficiency to lower the cost of care and administrative costs.

Prioritize improving health IT and reducing documentation burden, time inefficiencies, and hassle for health care providers, so they can focus on their patients rather than their computers.

The Report also says interoperable access underpins HHS’s efforts to pursue a health care system where data are available when and where needed.

ONC intends to particularly focus on promoting open APIs. Open APIs are technology that allow one software program to access the services provided by another software program and can improve access and exchange of health information. ONC says APIs can:

Support patients’ ability to have more access to information electronically through, for example, smartphones and mobile applications. HHS applauds the emergence of patient-facing applications that allow patients to access, aggregate, and act on their health information; and

Allow payers to receive necessary and appropriate information on a group of members without having to access one record at a time.
Increase institutional accountability, support value- based care models, and lead to competitive medical care pricing that benefits patients.

The Report claims patients, health care providers, and payers with appropriate access to health information can use modern computing solutions to generate value from the data. Improved interoperability can strengthen market competition, result in greater quality, safety, and value for the healthcare system, and enable patients, health care providers, and payers to experience the benefits of health IT.

Prepare For Enhanced Operability Requirements

ONC’s plan to achieve greater interoperability presents new business and compliance planning opportunities and challenges for health care providers, health insurers and other payers, health data and information technology (IT) providers and others. Among other things, participants in the healthcare system and their suppliers will need to prepare to comply with new expectations and mandates for interoperability. Meeting these demands will require financial expenditures as well as present technological challenges.The increased availability and access to electronica medical records and information resulting from these changes also a can be expected to drive new challenges and demands. Among other things, businesses relying on control of health information or records to influence or control patience, reimbursement, or other business value need to reevaluate and adjust their business models accordingly.

Improve accessibility and interoperability also is likely to create new expectations and demands by patients, payers, other providers and perhaps most significantly for providers and payers, regulators. Participants in the system will need to understand these applications and prepare to both defend their business performance as well as their compliance taking into account these new demands.

Amid all of this, of course, providers, pears, and their business associates can anticipate continued if not enhanced demands for enhanced data security and privacy protections and accompanying enforcement of these standards.

As ONC move forward on its plans to enhance interoperability, all concerned stakeholders will want to monitor developments and provide thoughtful and timely input. The time to get started is now. ONC and it’s sister agency, the Office of Civil Rights currently are inviting public comments about how to achieve these and other health IT and privacy improvements. Those interested in providing input should make sure their comments are submitted by the applicable deadlines next month.

Read the full Report here and share your input by the specified deadlines.

About the Author

Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

2/11/19 Deadline To Comment On Reducing HIPAA Regulatory Burden

December 13, 2018

February 12, 2019 is the deadline for health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, health care consumers, employer and other plan sponsors and fiduciaries, and other concerned persons to provide input on reducing the regulatory burdens of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules in response to the December 12, 2018 invitation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

OCR issued the invitation for public comment in a December 12, 2019 Request for Information (RFI). The RIF seeks input from the public on how OCR’s HIPAA Privacy and other Rules could be modified to further the HHS Secretary’s goal of promoting coordinated, value-based healthcare. This RFI is a part of the Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care, an initiative led by HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan.

HHS developed the HIPAA Rules to protect individuals’ health information privacy and security interests, while permitting information sharing needed for important purposes. However, in recent years, OCR has heard calls to revisit aspects of the Rules that may limit or discourage information sharing needed for coordinated care or to facilitate the transformation to value-based health care. The RFI requests information on any provisions of the HIPAA Rules that may present obstacles to these goals without meaningfully contributing to the privacy and security of protected health information (PHI) and/or patients’ ability to exercise their rights with respect to their PHI.

OCR’s December 12, 2018 press release concerning the RFI indicates that OCR is looking for candid feedback about how the existing HIPAA regulations are working in the real world and how OCR can improve them to improve quality of care and eliminate undue burdens on covered entities while maintaining robust privacy and security protections for individuals’ health information.

In addition to requesting broad input on the HIPAA Rules, the RFI also seeks comments on specific areas of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, including:

Encouraging information-sharing for treatment and care coordination
Facilitating parental involvement in care
Addressing the opioid crisis and serious mental illness
Accounting for disclosures of PHI for treatment, payment, and health care operations as required by the HITECH Act
Changing the current requirement for certain providers to make a good faith effort to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the Notice of Privacy Practices

Public comments on the RFI are due by February 11, 2019.

The RFI follows up on OCR’s announcement of another series of high dollar resolution agreements against covered entities and business associates for alleged breaches of HIPAA’s Privacy or Security Rules, as well as publication of various new guidance intended to help patients, their families, covered entities, business associates and others understand when HIPAA restricts or allows the release of protected health information by covered entities and business associates in mass shooting or other disaster situations, when dealing with patients with substance abuse or mental health conditions and in various other scenarios. Covered entities, their business associates as well as employer and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries and others involved with protected health information transactions and disclosures should review this new guidance and evaluate its implications on their actions and practices in addition to sharing input with OCR about opportunities to improve existing HIPAA Rules.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health care and health benefit arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes throughout her career. In addition to her extensive provider and payer contracting work, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her knowledge, experience and leadership on health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer throughout her career regularly has worked with health care providers and payers, employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce managed care and other contracts, benefit plans and insurance arrangements, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors, supplier, and patient and member relations and requirements; deal with Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA, state insurance law and other private payer rules and requirements; contracting; licensing; terms of participation; medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations; reporting and disclosure, government investigations and enforcement, privacy and data security; and other compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; HIPAA administrative simplification, meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA, HEDIS and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ADA, Ambulatory care, Anethesiology, Centers For Disease Control, Child Care, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Clinical pathway, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Cyber crime, data breach, DEA, Direct Primary Care, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, FDA, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, home health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, managed care, Meaningful Use, medical devices, Medical Licensure, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Mental Health, OCR, pain management, participating provider, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Provider contracting, Reimbursement, Uncategorized, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Allergy Practice $125,000 Settlement Reminds Health Care Providers, Other HIPAA Entities Of Press-Related HIPAA Risk

November 27, 2018

Physician practices and other health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (“Covered Entities”) and their business associates should learn from the costly schooling the Allergy Associates of Hartford, P.C. (“Allergy Associates”) is paying to settle charges that its physician violated the Privacy Rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) by commenting to a reporter on a patient complaint under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (“Resolution Agreement”) announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) yesterday (November 26, 2018). The latest in a series of OCR HIPAA settlements arising from health care providers improperly discussing or disclosing protected health information (PHI) with the press or other media, the Resolution Agreement reminds health care providers and other HIPAA-Covered Entities and their business associates not to discuss or disclose PHI with the media or others without first obtaining a HIPAA compliant authorization even to respond to accusations made by the patient or others.

Allergy Associates HIPAA Complaint Charge & Resolution

On November 26, 2018, OCR announced that Allergy Associates, a three doctor health care practice that specializes in treating individuals with allergies at four locations across Connecticut, has agreed to pay OCR $125,000 and take corrective action under the Resolution Agreement to resolve charges that the comments a physician made to a reporter on a patient dispute with the practice in 2015 violated HIPAA.

According to OCR, the disclosure of patient information that prompted OCR’s HIPAA charges resulted from a physician associated with the practice commenting to a local television station reporter doing on a story about a disabled patient’s complaint to the station that Allergy Associates turned her away from a scheduled appointment because of her use of a service animal. After the patient contacted the television statement to complain about being turned away by the practice when accompanied by her service animal, the Resolution Agreement indicates that the station contacted the doctor for comment about the dispute between the Allergy Associates’ doctor and the patient. Although OCR reports its investigation revealed that Allergy Associates’ Privacy Officer instructed the doctor to either not respond to the media or respond with “no comment,” the doctor nevertheless accepted the television station reporter’s invitation to comment and discussed the dispute with the reporter.

The physician’s comments to the reporter were brought to the attention of OCR when OCR received a copy of an October 6, 2015, HHS civil rights complaint filed on behalf of the patient with the Department of Justice, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney’s Office (DOJ) by the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (OPA). In response to this complaint, OCR initiated a joint investigation with DOJ into the civil rights allegations against Allergy Associates. The complaint also alleged that Allergy Associates impermissibly disclosed the patient’s PHI in violation of HIPAA.

Other Providers Also Paid High Price To OCR For Sharing PHI With Media

Of course, OCR enforcement action against and Resolution Agreement with Allergy Associates is just one of several reported OCR actions against health care providers for improperly disclosing or allowing the press or other media access to PHI without patient authorization.

For instance, a Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on June 14, 2013 required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay OCR $275,000 and implement a series of corrective actions for using and disclosing to the media PHI of a patient while trying to perform public relations damage control against accusations reported in the media that SRMC had engaged in fraud or other misconduct when dealing with the patient. That Resolution Agreement resulted from OCR investigating a January 4, 2012 Los Angeles Times article report that two SRMC senior leaders had met with media to discuss medical services provided to a patient. OCR’s investigation indicated that SRMC failed to safeguard the patient’s PHI from impermissible disclosure by intentionally disclosing PHI to multiple media outlets on at least three separate occasions, without a valid written authorization. OCR’s review also revealed senior management at SRMC impermissibly shared details about the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis and treatment in an email to the entire workforce. Further, SRMC failed to sanction its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s records pursuant to its internal sanctions policy.

The sanctions were even greater in the May 10, 2017 Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan OCR announced with the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) for issuing a press release with the name and other PHI about a patient arrested and charged with presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to MHHS office staff to fraudulently obtain care without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient. MHHS paid OCR a $2.4 million resolution payment to resolve HIPAA charges OCR brought against MHHS as well as agreed to implement a detailed corrective action plan. See $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI.

The costs of resolution have been even higher when OCR has addressed disclosures to media made by health care providers or other Covered Entities that allowed their desire for media publicity and coverage of their organizations ahead of patient privacy. For instance, OCR collected a $2.2 million resolution payment from New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) for allowing unauthorized filming and photographing of patients in its facility by a television film crew and other staff filming for the television program “NY Med” in the hospital. See $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Furthermore, earlier this year OCR collected a total of $999,0000 from Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)(collectively, the “Hospitals”) for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three settlement agreements with the Hospitals announced by OCR in September, 2018. The payments were made under three separate settlement agreements between OCR and each respective Hospital made public by OCR in connection with the September 20, 2018 announcement stemming from the Hospital’s allowing ABC film crews to film in patient treatment and other areas for the ABC medical documentary “Save My Life: Boston Trauma” series. See $999K Price Hospitals Pay To Settle HIPAA Privacy Charges From Allowing ABC To Film Patients Without Authorization.

OCR’s concern about and intolerance for improper disclosures of PHI to the media by health care providers and other Covered Entities is further demonstrated by OCR’s publication of its 2016 Frequently Asked Question (Media FAQ) addressing Covered Entities’ responsibilities when dealing with the media coincident with OCR’s announcement of its Resolution Agreement with NYP in 2016. The Allergy Associates’ Resolution Agreement further reinforces OCR’s continuing commitment to hold health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates accountable for complying with HIPAA when dealing with the press and other media. In the fact of this commitment, health care providers and other Covered Entities must take the necessary steps to implement the appropriate policies, training and controls to ensure that they and their staff and representatives comply with these directives when dealing with press and other media.

Resolution Agreement Also Highlights Need For Sensitivity When Dealing With Disabled Patients With Service Animals

Beyond the HIPAA charges and settlement discussed in the Resolution Agreement, health care providers and other Covered Entities also should heed the factual circumstances that prompted the television interview of the Allergy Associates’ physician that prompted the OCR HIPAA enforcement action as a precautionary warning to ensure that their policies, procedures and staff training for dealing with disabled patients supported by service animals are defensible legally and in the court of public opinion.

The Allergy Associates Resolution Agreement states that OCR’s HIPAA investigation was conducted in response to and in tandem with a Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) Office of Civil Rights investigation of a complaint that Allergy Associates violated the patient’s civil rights by improperly refusing to allow the patient’s service animal to accompany the patient during the patient’s appointment. The patient’s complaint about the practice that the television reporter asked for and obtained the comments from the Allergy Associates’ physician that OCR found violated HIPAA related to Allergy Associates refusing to allow the patient to be accompanied by her service animal during her appointment with Allergy Associates.

While research as of the date of the publication of this article did not uncover any published record of any Justice Department prosecution or settlement or other official notification concerning the Justice Department civil rights investigation against Allergy Associates, the Justice Department Office of Civil Rights as well as the HHS OCR Civil Rights Division have in the past pursued enforcement action against health care providers and others for improperly restricting or denying access to care or facilities by disabled persons based on their accompaniment by service animals.

Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) generally prohibits places of public accommodations, including the professional office of a health care provider, from discriminating against any individual on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation, by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation, including health care services. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.201. The ADA also requires that such entities make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of service animals by people with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c). Health care providers also generally are prohibited from discriminating against and required to provide accommodation to individuals with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act and the Medicare statutes.

The Justice Department, HHS and courts have interpreted these disability prohibition and accommodation laws as making it illegal for a health care provider or its agent to fail to make reasonable accommodations for a person with a service animal unless the health care provider proves (1) the accommodations would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility or service it provides; or (2) based upon an individual assessment, the hospital determines that the service animal poses a substantial and direct threat to health or safety which cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodations. See, e.g., Tamara v. El Comino Hospital, 964 F.Supp.2d 1077 (N.D.Ca. 2013).

While other types of discriminatory actions by health care providers found to be in violation of these rules often trigger substantial damage awards, administrative penalties, disqualification or restriction of Medicare and other federal program participation for violation of Conditions of Participation, to date the reported agency and judicial enforcement actions brought against health care providers for improperly refusing to allow service animals to accompany patients when accessing facilities or receiving care generally have ordered injunctive or other corrective action but have not imposed substantial damage or administrative penalties upon the culpable provider. Health care providers should avoid the temptation to underestimate the potential seriousness or liability that their organization is likely to incur based on the current lack of substantial financial damage awards or administrative sanctions, however. The 11th Circuit’s ruling in Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11^th Cir. 2007), that noneconomic compensatory damages were available as a remedy for the emotional distressed caused by the violation under the Rehabilitation Act and that the voluntary correction of its policies during the pendency of the litigation did not render moot Sheely’s claim for monetary relief clearly opens the door for a jury to award substantial damages against a health care provider when the jury perceives the circumstances warrant. Furthermore, health care providers need to keep in mind the typically financial and operational burdens of defending litigation or a Justice Department or HHS OCR Civil Rights investigation and costs of implementation and compliance with administrative or injunctive orders to take corrective action as well as the negative public relations attend these types of complaints, their investigation and resolution. Moreover, health care providers participating in Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs also need to take into account the possibility that an alleged violation of these nondiscrimination rules also can serve as a basis for investigation of compliance with applicable Conditions of Participation for program participation and reimbursement. Considering these risks, physician and other health care providers should heed the reminder of their obligations to offer and provide proper accommodation to allow appropriate access to disabled individuals with disabilities requiring service animal support and take steps to review and update their policies, practices and staff training to minimize the risk of potential charges of violation of these requirements.

Health Care Providers, Other Covered Entities Encouraged To Act To Manage HIPAA & Disability Accommodation Risks

The Allergy Associates and other HIPAA Resolution Agreements arising from improper sharing of PHI with the press or other media make clear the need for health care providers and other Covered Entities to exercise great care when dealing with the press and other media.

Clearly, health care providers and other Covered Entities should heed the warning by conducting a risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to potential improper disclosures to media or others and reviewing and implementing necessary written policies, procedures and training to prevent the improper disclosure of patient PHI to media or others unless the Covered Entity either secures prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient or can prove the disclosure falls squarely under an exception to the Privacy Rule’s prohibition against disclosure of PHI without authorization except as allowed by the Privacy Rule.

Based on experiences reported in the Allergy Associates and other Resolution Agreements and OCR guidance concerning media disclosures, Covered Entities also generally will want to ensure that their policies, procedures and training extend to all potential sources of communications that could involve patient information and make clear that the Privacy Rule restrictions must be followed even if the circumstances involve allegations of misconduct, special performance by healthcare providers or others that it would benefit the organization or certain individuals to have known to the public, or other circumstances likely to be of interest to the media or other parties.

As part of this process, health care providers and other Covered Entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate management, supervision, training and direction is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

In conducting this analysis and risk assessment, it also is important that Covered Entities include, but also look beyond the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that their review and risk assessment identifies and assesses and addresses compliance risks on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

For this reason, Covered Entities also generally will not only to adopt and implement specific policies, processes and training in these other departments to prohibit and prevent inappropriate disclosures of PHI in the course of those departments operations. As part of these processes, Covered Entities generally will want to implement a pre-established process for reviewing media or other communications for potential PHI content which includes a requirement for prior review of any proposed public relations and other internal or external communications containing patient PHI or other information by the privacy officer, legal counsel or another suitably qualified party.

Because of the high risk that the preparation or review of media or other public communications reports will involve the use and disclosure of PHI, Covered Entities also generally should verify that all outside media or public relations, legal, or other outside service providers participating in the investigation, response or preparation or review of communications to the media or others both are covered by signed business associate agreements that fulfill the Privacy Rule and other requirements of HIPAA as well as possess detailed knowledge and understanding of the Privacy and Security Rules suitable to participate in and help safeguard the Covered Entity against violations of these and other Privacy Rules. See e.g., Latest HIPAA Resolution Agreement Drives Home Importance Of Maintaining Current, Signed Business Associate Agreements.

About the Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health care and health benefit arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes throughout her career. In addition to her extensive provider and payer contracting work, Ms. Stamer also is recognized for her knowledge, experience and leadership on health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long-term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Record $16M Anthem HIPAA Settlement Signals Need To Tighten HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management

October 16, 2018

Health care providers, managed care organizations, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses and their business associates should study and learn from the just announced, record-setting $16 million resolution agreement between health insurance giant, Anthem, Inc. and the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The resolution agreement resolves OCR charges that Anthem, Inc.’s violations of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules exposed the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of almost 79 million people. In addition to reviewing the adequacy of their own HIPAA privacy and security practices, health care providers, health plans, their employer and union sponsors and fiduciaries also should consider assessing the advisability of tightening their business associate and other agreements with health insurers, third party administrative services providers and other vendors in light of the resolution agreement and practical experiences with the fallout of the Anthem breach to better position themselves to assess and enforce HIPAA compliance, receive notice and respond in the event of an insurer or other vendor breach and mitigate financial costs and liabilities resulting from breaches or other compliance deficiencies.

Anthem’s Record Setting Breach & Resolution Agreement

The settlement agreement announced October 15, 2018 by OCR requires Anthem, Inc. to pay a $16 million resolution payment to OCR and take a series of corrective actions to resolve HIPAA liabilities to OCR for allowing the largest known U.S. health data breach in history in 2015.

The record $16 million resolution payment eclipses the prior record resolution payment of $5.55 million Memorial Healthcare System (MHS) paid OCR to settle HIPAA charges in 2016.

An independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and one of the nation’s largest health benefits companies, Anthem provides medical care coverage to one in eight Americans through its affiliated health plans. The breach that resulted in the settlement agreement affected ePHI Anthem maintained for its affiliated health plans including many employer or union sponsored self-insured and insured group health plans and other HIPAA-covered entity health plans.

On March 13, 2015, Anthem filed a breach report with the HHS Office for Civil Rights that disclosed that Anthem discovered on January 29, 2015 that cyber-attackers had gained access to and engaged in continuous and targeted cyberattack on Anthem’s IT system for the apparent purpose of extracting data, otherwise known as an advanced persistent threat attack. After filing its breach report, Anthem discovered cyber-attackers had infiltrated their system through spear phishing emails sent to an Anthem subsidiary after at least one employee responded to the malicious email and opened the door to further attacks. OCR’s investigation revealed that between December 2, 2014 and January 27, 2015, the cyber-attackers stole the ePHI of almost 79 million individuals, including names, social security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information.

In addition to the impermissible disclosure of ePHI, OCR’s investigation revealed that Anthem failed to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis, had insufficient procedures to regularly review information system activity, failed to identify and respond to suspected or known security incidents, and failed to implement adequate minimum access controls to prevent the cyber-attackers from accessing sensitive ePHI, beginning as early as February 18, 2014.

Beyond the consequences for the millions of individuals whose ePHI was disclosed through the breach, the breach also triggered responsibilities and concerns for heath care providers who contracted to provide care or services to Anthem plan members, fiduciaries and sponsors of the employer and union-sponsored group health plans administered or insured by Anthem. Health care providers and their patients were forced to deal with the fall out of having patient data exposed in the breach. In addition sponsors and fiduciaries of private sector employer or union sponsored plans struggled to obtain information and cooperation from Anthem necessary to evaluate and fulfill their health plans’ HIPAA obligations as well as the fiduciary responsibility requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In addition to the $16 million settlement that Anthem is paying to resolve OCR’s HIPAA charges stemming from the breach, the OCR settlement agreement also requires Anthem to undertake a robust corrective action plan to comply with the HIPAA Rules.

In addition to the $16 million paid under the OCR resolution agreement, anthem already has paid more than $115 million to settle lawsuits arising out of the breach under other laws.

Anthem Follows On Other Recent Enforcement

The record setting Anthem resolution agreement is notable in part as one of the few high dollar settlement agreements involving a health plan. To date, the overwhelming majority of HIPAA enforcement actions have involved health care providers.

Rgeardless of the category of the covered entity involved, however, the Anthem settlement again drives home the risks health care providers, health plans and other covered entities and their business associates run for lax HIPAA compliance and risk management. The latest in the growing list of high dollar HIPAA settlements OCR has collected from health care provider and other covered entities including the $999,0000 in settlement payments OCR announced on September 20, 2018 that Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) paid for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three settlement agreements.

Act To Manage Compliance & Risks

Unquestionably, health care providers, other health insurers, employer, union and association sponsored group health plans, and their vendors and business associates should evaluate the adequacy and defensibility of their own health plan privacy and security practices in light of the Anthem breach and resolution agreement. In addition, employer, union or association health plan sponsors, administrative service providers and fiduciaries also should consider the advisability of strengthening their business associate agreements with insurers, third party administrators and other health plan service providers to incorporate safeguards, audit, oversight or other provisions and practices to help prudently monitor potential risks and improve their ability to receive timely notice, respond to, and preserve rights of recourse against insurers or other vendors in the event of a breach or other deficiency.

Since Covered Entities also are likely to be subject to other statutory, ethical, contractual or other privacy or confidentiality requirements beyond those imposed by the Privacy Rule, most Covered Entities also will want to consider and take steps to identify and address other potential legal or ethical responsibilities such as medical confidentiality duties applicable to physicians and other health care providers under medical ethics, professional licensure or other similar rules, contractual responsibilities, as well as common law privacy or other related exposures when conducting this review. Additionally, most Covered Entities also will want to take into account and manage their potential exposure to privacy, theft of likeness or other intellectual property, or other statutory or common law tort or contractual claims that might attached to the unauthorized filming, photographing, or surveillance of individuals under federal or state common or statutory laws.

Since this analysis and review in most cases will result in the uncovering or discussion of potentially legally or politically sensitive information, Covered Entities should consider consulting with or engaging experienced legal counsel for assistance in structuring and executing these activities to maximize their ability to claim attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary protections against discovery or disclosure of certain aspects of these activities.

Finally, Covered Entities should keep in mind that HIPAA compliance and risk management is an ongoing process requiring constant awareness and diligence. Consequently, Covered Entities should both monitor OCR and other regulatory and enforcement developments as well as exercise ongoing vigilance to monitor and maintain compliance within their organizations.

About The Author

A practicing attorney and Managing Shareholder of Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer’s more than 30 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

Board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual Agency Meeting with the Office of Civil Rights and a former JCEB Council Representative; former Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group; and past Chair, former Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair and current Fiduciary Responsibility Committee Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, former Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, Ms. Stamer is recognized nationally and internationally for her practical and creative insights and leadership on HIPAA and other health care, managed care and insurance, and other employee benefit, human resources, and related antitrust, corporate, privacy and data security, tax and other internal controls, regulatory affairs and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer’s legal and management consulting work throughout her career has focused on helping organizations and their management use the law and process to manage people, process, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer helps public and private, domestic and international health, insurance and financial security, and other businesses, governments, and other organizations and their leaders manage their employees, vendors and suppliers, and other workforce members, customers and other’ performance, compliance, compensation and benefits, operations, risks and liabilities, as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

In this respect, Ms. Stamer works with businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, regulatory compliance and operational and performance management. She supports her clients both on a real time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well known for her extensive work with health care, insurance and other highly regulated entities on corporate compliance, internal controls and risk management, her clients range from highly regulated entities like employers, contractors and their employee benefit plans, their sponsors, management, administrators, insurers, fiduciaries and advisors, technology and data service providers, health care, managed care and insurance, financial services, government contractors and government entities, as well as retail, manufacturing, construction, consulting and a host of other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.

As a key part of this work, Ms. Stamer uses her deep and highly specialized health, insurance, labor and employment and other knowledge and experience to help health industry, insurance and financial services and other employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors; health, pension and other employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers, and others design legally compliant, effective compliance and internal controls, risk management, human resources and other workforce performance, discipline, compensation, employee benefits and related programs, products and arrangements.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated an impressive resume of experience advising and representing clients on HIPAA and other privacy and data security concerns. The scribe for the American Bar Association (ABA) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meeting with the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights for several years, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employer and other sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA and other information privacy and data security rules, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health plans, health insurers, health care providers, banking, technology and other vendors, and others. Beyond advising these and other clients on privacy and data security compliance, risk management, investigations and data breach response and remediation, Ms. Stamer also advises and represents clients on OCR and other HHS, Department of Labor, IRS, FTC, DOD and other health care industry investigation, enforcement and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns. She also is the author of numerous highly acclaimed publications, workshops and tools for HIPAA or other compliance including training programs on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Ms. Stamer also is deeply involved in helping to influence the health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, employee benefit, privacy and data security and other federal, state and local laws, regulations and enforcement actions. She both helps her clients respond to and resolve emerging regulations and laws, government investigations and enforcement actions and helps them shape the rules through dealings with Congress and other legislatures, regulators and government officials domestically and internationally. A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security reform law and most recognized for her leadership on U.S. health and pension, wage and hour, tax, education and immigration policy reform, Ms. Stamer works with U.S. and foreign businesses, governments, trade associations, and others on workforce, social security and severance, health care, immigration, privacy and data security, tax, ethics and other laws and regulations. Founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment and a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and State Bar of Texas. She also works as a policy advisor and advocate to health, insurance and financial services, employee benefits and other business, professional and civic organizations.

Author of the thousands of publications and workshops these and other employment, employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly sought out speaker and industry thought leader known for empowering audiences and readers. Ms. Stamer’s insights on employee benefits, insurance, health care and workforce matters in Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, Modern Healthcare, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications. Ms. Stamer also regularly serves on the faculty and planning committees for symposia of LexisNexis, the American Bar Association, ALIABA, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, ISSA, HIMMs, and many other prominent educational and training organizations and conducts training and speaks on these and other management, compliance and public policy concerns.

Ms. Stamer also has a lifelong history of involvement with and service with a diverse range of professional, community and charitable organizations and causes including as founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition for Patient Empowerment; technical advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Health Care Policy; a founding Board Member and President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence and its Patient Empowerment and Health Care Heroes Projects; a Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; the Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; a member of the Dallas United Way Long Range Planning Committee; as well as leadership involvement in the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council, the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Professionals Association; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, the ABA Health Law Section, the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee, and the ABA TIPS Employee Benefit Committee; TEGE Coordinator of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division; Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association; Dallas, Regional and State BACPAC Chair of the Texas Association of Business; SHRM Regional Chair and National Advisory Board Chair; WEB Network of Benefits Professionals National and Dallas Boards; as a contributing author and the Advisory Board member of the BNA EBCD CD, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications and as chair or planning faculty of a multitude of symposia.. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see www.cynthiastamer.com, or contact Ms. Stamer via email here or via telephone to (214) 452.8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Leave a Comment » | Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Qulity, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Medical Privacy, Privacy, Rural Health Care, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Care | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Comments Due Tomorrow (10/17) On ONC Request for Information (RFI) for Input on EHR Reporting Program

October 16, 2018

Comments are due tomorrow on the Department of Health & Human Services Office of the National Coordinator’s (ONC’s) Electronic Health Record (EHR) Reporting Program Request for Information (RFI).

Section 4002(c) of the 21st Century Cures Act requires HHS to establish the program which provides publically available, comparative information on certified health IT. ONC recently issued an RFI for the public to share their views on the components of the EHR Reporting Program, and to provide feedback that will inform the development of EHR Reporting Program criteria and processes as required by the Cures Act.

ONC encourages stakeholders to provide their comments through the online submission process available on the Federal Register. Comments are due at 5:00pm ET tomorrow, October 17, 2018. Interested persons may submit their comments here

About The Author

A practicing attorney and health industry consultant and policy advocate, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer’s more than 30 years’ of leading edge work as an practicing attorney, author, lecturer and industry and policy thought leader have resulted in her recognition as a “Top” attorney in employee benefits, labor and employment and health care law.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

$999K Price Hospitals Pay To Settle HIPAA Privacy Charges From Allowing ABC To Film Patients Without Authorization

September 21, 2018

With New Settlements, OCR Collections From HIPAA Covered Entities For Improperly Allowing Filming Or Other PHI Disclosures To Media Now Exceed $3 Million

$999,0000 is the collective price tag paid by Boston Medical Center (BMC), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)(collectively, the “Hospitals”) for putting publicity before patient privacy by allowing ABC News documentary film crews to film patients and access other patient information for a news documentary without obtaining prior patient authorization under three settlement agreements with the Hospitals just announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

On Thursday, September 20, 2018, OCR announced the three Hospitals collectively have paid a total of $999,000 to settle OCR charges that each Hospital separately violated each violated patients’ Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rights by allowing ABC television documentary film crews to observe and film patients and otherwise access to patient’s protected health information (“PHI”) without prior HIPAA-compliant patient authorization. The payments were made under three separate settlement agreements between OCR and each respective Hospital made public by OCR in connection with the September 20, 2018 announcement stemming from the Hospital’s allowing ABC film crews to film in patient treatment and other areas for the ABC medical documentary “Save My Life: Boston Trauma” series.

Considered in conjunction with OCR’s April 16, 2016 announcement of its $2.2 million HIPAA settlement (NY-Presby Settlement) with New York-Presbyterian Hospital for allowing film crews from the “NY Med” television series to film patients and OCR’s concurrently-published 2016 Frequently Asked Question (Media FAQ) addressing Covered Entities’ responsibilities when dealing with the media, the three newly-announced settlement agreements drive home the need for physicians, hospitals and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) to protect patients and their PHI against unauthorized filming, photography, observation and other access by news or other media or even other staff, patients or visitors. With OCR now having collected nearly $3 million in settlement proceeds from 4 separate providers for violating these rules, all Covered Entities should review and tighten their current policies, practices and staff training regarding media access and relations, filming and photographing of patients and patient information within their facilities and other HIPAA compliance to reduce the potential that their organizations will fall subject to similar enforcement by OCR.

Media FAQ Highlights Duty To Protect Patients Against Unauthorized Filming, Photography & Other PHI Disclosures By Media, Others

OCR specifically alerted Covered Entities about their responsibility to safeguard patients and their PHI in dealings with the media in the Media FAQ OCR published in connection with its 2016 announcement of its $2.2 million settlement with New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

Among other things, the Media FAQ states that HIPAA prohibits health care providers and other Covered Entities from inviting or allowing media personnel into treatment or other areas where patients or patient PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral, or other visual or audio form, or otherwise making PHI accessible to the media without prior written authorization from each patient or other subject of the PHI who is or will be in the area or whose PHI otherwise will be accessible to the media except in a very limited set of circumstances set forth in the Media FAQ.

The Media FAQ also states, “It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixilation, or voice alteration software) for whom an authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patients’ PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

Concerning the limited circumstances when a health care provider or other Covered Entity or business associate may disclose to the media or allow unconsented filming, photographing or use of PHI to the media or other film crews, the Media FAQ also clarifies that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public like public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility.

In addition, the Media FAQ states a health care provider or other Covered Entity may:

Disclose limited PHI about the incapacitated patient to the media in accordance with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii) when, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest; or
Disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name as specified in 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a).

The Media FAQ also discusses circumstances where a healthcare provider or other Covered Entity may use the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if the provider ensures that the film crew acting as a business associate enters into a HIPAA compliant business associate agreement with the Covered Entity which among other things ensures that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed as required by 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). The Media FAQ also states that as a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, the Media FAQ reminds Covered Entities and business associates of the need to obtain prior authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials before any of those materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated.

Finally, the Media FAQ states Covered Entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the covered entity does not share PHI with the media.

4 High Dollar HIPAA Settlements HIPAA Sanctions Covered Entities Risk By Allowing Improper Media & Other Recording, Use Or Access To PHI

The nearly $3 million in total settlement payments collected under the original 2016 NY-Presby Settlement and three additional settlement agreements announced by OCR on September 20, 2018 collectively make clear that health care providers or other Covered Entities risk substantial sanctions from OCR for allowing television or other media to film or access patients or their PHI without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient.

$2.2 Million NY-Presby Settlement

OCR originally made clear that its intention that other Covered Entities learn from the NY- Presbyterian experience in its April 21, 2016 announcement of the Resolution Agreement. The announcement quoted OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels as stating, “This case sends an important message that OCR will not permit covered entities to compromise their patients’ privacy by allowing news or television crews to film the patients without their authorization.”

Of course, even without then OCR Director Samuel’s warning, the $2.2 million settlement amount OCR required NY-Presbyterian Hospital to pay under the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement alone strongly signaled OCR’s willingness to harshly sanction health care providers and other Covered Entities for putting media coverage before patients.

Based on its investigation, OCR charged NY-Presbyterian with violating 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(a) and 164.530(c) by:

Impermissibly disclosing the PHI of two identified patients to the film crew and other staff of “NY Med”; and
Failing appropriately and reasonably to safeguard its patients’ PHI from disclosure during the filming of “NY Med” on its premises; and
Failing to implement policies, procedures and practices to protect the privacy of its filming of aforementioned television show.
BMC Settlement Agreement

The circumstances that resulted in the three resolution agreements announced on September 20, 2018 are strikingly similar to those underlying the NY-Presby Resolution Agreement. Notably, the investigations that resulted in the three settlement agreements all arose out of the respective Hospital’s permitting an ABC documentary film crew filming a medical documentary to access patient areas of their hospitals. OCR’s investigation of MGH arose in response to an announcement about the impending filming on its website while OCR’s investigations of BMC and BWH started in response to a January 12, 2015 Boston Globe article that reported the Hospitals each separately had allowed ABC film crews filming a documentary to access PHI and film patients without obtaining patient authorization. See Boston Medical Center Resolution Agreement (BMC Settlement Agreement); Brigham and Women’s Hospital Resolution Agreement (BWH Settlement Agreement); and Massachusetts General Hospital Resolution Agreement (MGH Resolution Agreement)

The timing at which they obtained patient authorizations showed MGH and BWH impermissibly disclosed the PHI of patients to ABC employees during the production and filming of a television program at BWH; and
Despite the various patient privacy protections that were put in place, MGH and BWH failed to appropriately and reasonably safeguard its patients’ PHI from disclosure during a filming project conducted by ABC on its premises in 2014 and January 2015.

OCR To Covered Entities: Prevent Unauthorized Filming, Photography & PHI Access & Disclosures To Media, Other Third Parties

Given the clear warnings communicated by OCR in its Media FAQ and September 20, 2018 and NY-Presby Settlements, all Covered Entities should take steps to verify that their current policies, practices and training are appropriately designed and administered to ensure their ability to demonstrate compliance with OCR’s interpretation of the Privacy Rule as prohibiting health care providers or other Covered Entities from allowing film or media to film, photograph or even access areas where patients or their PHI are accessible or otherwise disclosing PHI to members of the media without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization from each patient whose presence or PHI could be observed, recorded or otherwise accessed.

When considering the adequacy of their current policies, practices and training concerning filming, photography and other access and disclosure to patients, patient treatment areas and other PHI, Covered Entities should resist the temptation to read the Media FAQ and media settlement agreements as relevant only to their policies concerning filming, photography and PHI access by members of the media. In this respect, it bears noting that the NY-Presby Settlement expressly required NY-Presbyterian as part of its required corrective action to adopt and enforce policies requiring that “all photography, video recording and audio recording conducted on NY-Presbyterian premises” be reviewed, preapproved and actively monitored by appropriate NY-Presbyterian representatives for compliance with the Privacy Rule and NY-Presbyterian’s policies. This requirement to adopt and administer appropriate safeguards to control filming or photography and other access to patients and their PHI generally, rather than just by the media, reflects a recognition by OCR that HIIPAA’s requirement that Covered Entities secure prior HIPAA-compliant authorization before allowing others to access or disclosing PHI to others applies to access or disclosure to “any third party not involved in patient care,” not merely those to media or film crews. Consequently, Covered Entities also should consider the implications of the guidance shared in the Media FAQ and media settlement agreements on the adequacy and defensibility of their current policies, practices and training about filming, photographing, or other access or disclosure to patients, patient treatment areas and PHI by any party within their facilities and organizations.

When evaluating these responsibilities and risks, Covered Entities are encouraged not only to take into account potential risks from filming, photographs or other access to patients or patient treatment or recordkeeping areas by third-parties unaffiliated with their organizations as well as filming, photographs and other access by staff, employees or business associates within their facilities. Covered Entities should take steps to monitor and properly restrict and protect any filming, photography or other observations, records or other access to patients or their information by individuals within their workforce, as well as to regulate the access and activities of unrelated third parties. In this respect, Covered Entities are cautioned about the need to prohibit and enforce restrictions against members of their workforce using their own personal devices or other equipment to film, photograph, and copy or disseminate photographs, film, recordings or other records or data that qualifies as or contains PHI without authorization in accordance with established protocols. Covered Entities should ensure that their policies and training make clear that these prohibitions apply whether or not the workforce member believes that identity of the patient or patient information is concealed or otherwise not discoverable. Moreover, even with respect to photographs, films or other recordings or records legitimately created for treatment, payment or operations purposes, Covered Entities generally need to take steps to restrict use, access and disclosure of the photographs or other recordings to individuals legitimately involved in patient treatment, operations, payment or other activities allowed by the Privacy Rule and to safeguard those materials against use, access or disclosure to others within or outside their workforce except as allowed by HIPAA and other applicable law. .

As part of these activities, Covered Entities should consider conducting a well-documented assessment of their current policies, practices and workforce training on allowing media or other parties to enter, film, photograph or record within their facilities or otherwise disclosing or allowing media access to their facilities as well as their policies about when parties not involved in care of a particular patient can film, photograph, or otherwise record, observe or access areas where patients or patient PHI is or might be present without prior written consent of the patient.

About The Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also may be interested reviewing other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.solutionslawpress.com such as:

Device Manufacturers & Health Care Providers Should Update Audits & Controls For New NIST Data Security Guidance

August 23, 2018

Medical device manufacturers whose physical devices include technology that allows them to connect to the internet or other electronic system to communicate with other devices or systems “connected medical devices”) and health care providers installing, providing or using these devices should check out the guidance on connected medical device security provided by the just released 375 page NIST Special Publication 1800-8 (Guidance) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

While the Guidance’s title of “Securing Wireless Infusion Pumps,” suggests a more narrow focus, the Guidance clearly can be read as relevant if not generally applicable to all connected medical devices.

Unlike prior medical devices that were once standalone instruments, today’s wireless infusion pumps and other connected medical devices transmit and/or connect to a variety of electronic health records (EHRs) and other healthcare systems, networks, and other devices. While this connectivity often helps improve certain healthcare delivery processes, a medical device’s connectivity capabilities also can create significant cybersecurity risk, which could lead to health care privacy, operational or safety risks. Tampering or other intentional or inadvertent access or interference with the data sent or received from connected medical devices can expose health care providers and their healthcare enterprises to series risks including, for example:

A breach of electronic protected health information (ePHI) in violation of the privacy and security standards of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA);
Loss or disruption of healthcare services;
Malicious access by malicious actors;
Loss or corruption of enterprise information and patient data and health records; and
Resulting damage to an organization’s reputation, productivity, and bottom-line revenue.

The Guide includes a variety of information NIST intends to help organizations manage these and other risks to connected medical devices and their ePHI and other data. It provides an example that:

Illustrates cybersecurity standards and best-practice guidelines for better securing the wireless infusion pump ecosystem, such as the hardening of operating systems, segmenting the network, file and program whitelisting, code-signing, and using certificates for both authorization and encryption, maintaining the performance and usability of wireless infusion pumps and other connected mobile devices;
Discusses risks and opportunities to reduce risks from the compromise of information, including the potential for a breach or loss of ePHI, as well as not allowing these medical devices to be used for anything other than the intended purposes;
Documentation of a defense-in-depth strategy to introduce layers of cybersecurity controls that avoid a single point of failure and provide strong support for availability that may include a variety of tactics: using network segmentation to isolate business units and user access; applying firewalls to manage and control network traffic; hardening and enabling device security features to reduce zero-day exploits; and implementing strong network authentication protocols and proper network encryption, monitoring, auditing, and intrusion detection systems (IDS) and intrusion prevention systems (IPS);
Highlights best practices for the procurement of wireless infusion pumps, by including the need for cybersecurity features at the point of purchase; and
Calls upon industry to create new best practices for healthcare providers to consider when onboarding medical devices, with a focus on elements such as asset inventory, certificate management, device hardening and configuration, and a clean-room environment to limit the possibility of zero-day vulnerabilities.

As the patient identifiable ePHI these connected medical devices send, store or receive are considered subject to HIPAA’s privacy, security and breach notification rules, health care providers, medical device manufacturers acting as their business associates and other entities covered by these rules as covered entities or business associates are responsible for protecting and safeguarding this ePHI in accordance with HIPAA’s requirements. Since the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) often points to the NIST guidance as a relevant touchstone for HIPAA covered entities and business associates to comply with HIPAA security requirements, HIPAA covered entities can anticipate that OCR will look to and be influenced by the Guidance in formulating and applying HIPAA to connected mobile devices. Consequently, health care providers and other HIPAA covered entities and their business associates should be prepared to demonstrate their consideration and use of the standards and practices suggested in the Guidance including their analysis and justification for not following those criteria as part of their HIPAA security rule assessments. Meanwhile, connected mobile device manufacturers also will want to evaluate the Guidance and update their products and practices both to meet customer demands and to mitigate their risks as manufacturers to potential product liability claims and associated claims likely to rise from breaches or other events that may result from the failure to address the security and other risks identified in the Guidance as well as, when applicable, their specific business associate risk under HIPAA.

To accomplish this, impacted health care providers, manufacturers and other responsible parties generally will want to assess and confirm within the scope of attorney-client privilege the compliance of the ePHI safeguards of their current connected medical devices as well as require documented verification that any connected medical devices not yet deployed take into account these new standards. To the extent that deficiencies exist in the adherence of currently in use connected medical devices, HIPAA covered entities and their business associates should consult with qualified legal counsel experienced in addressing these HIPAA compliance and risk management concerns about the defensibility and exposures potential arising from the continued use of the devices, if any, and develop an appropriate compliance and risk management plan accordingly.

About the Author

Recognized repeatedly by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry, health and other benefit, workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employer, associations, government and other health benefit sponsors and administrators, public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.

Beyond her public policy and regulatory affairs involvement, Ms. Stamer also has extensive experience helping these and other clients to design and reform programs and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government; accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

Ms. Stamer helps health industry, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; vendors and suppliers; Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other private payer and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology, data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, antikickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care; internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; 1557 and other Civil Rights; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on a multitude of health care, health plan and other health industry matters, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative and CLE and Marketing Committee Chair, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer’s health industry clients include public health organizations; public and private hospitals, healthcare systems, clinics and other health care facilities; physicians, physician practices, medical staff, and other provider organizations; skilled nursing, long term care, assisted living, home health, ambulatory surgery, dialysis, telemedicine, DME, Pharma, clinics, and other health care providers; billing, management and other administrative services organizations; insured, self-insured, association and other health plans; PPOs, HMOs and other managed care organizations, insurance, claims administration, utilization management, and other health care payers; public and private peer review, quality assurance, accreditation and licensing; technology and other outsourcing; healthcare clearinghouse and other data; research; public and private social and community organizations; real estate, technology, clinical pathways, and other developers; investors, banks and financial institutions; audit, accounting, law firm; consulting; document management and recordkeeping, business associates, vendors, and service providers and other professional and other health industry organizations; academic medicine; trade associations; legislative and other law making bodies and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, data breach, data security, Durable Medical Equipment, Electronic Health Records, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, home health, Hospital, hospitals, Human Subjects Research, Immigration, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Life Sciences, medical devices, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, NIST, Privacy, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: connected medical device, Data Breach, Data Privacy Day, Data Security, EPHI, FTC Act, Health Care, health care data security, health care privacy, HIPAA, medical device, NIST, product liability, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HIPAA Lessons Every Health Plan, Health Care Provider & Business Associate Should Learn From Bankrupt FileFax’s HIPAA Settlement

February 16, 2018

Health care providers, health plans and insurers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates within the meaning of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) should heed the warnings contained in the new Resolution Agreement (FileFax Resolution Agreement) with former HIPAA business associate FileFax, Inc. announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) about their own need to ensure that they and their business associates comply with HIPAA’s business associate and other Privacy, Security, Breach Notification rules as well as the advisability of tightening up their risk management and oversight of business associates that handle protected health information (PHI).

Significant for business associates as what appears to be the first announced resolution agreement with a business associate directly charged by OCR with violating HIPAA and the second resolution agreement pursued and reached with a HIPAA-regulated entity in bankruptcy, the FileFax, Inc. Resolution Agreement OCR announced February 13, 2018 also contains critical lessons for Covered Entities about their dealings with their own business associates when read in conjunction with the April, 2017 resolution agreement the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH) agreed to resolve OCR charges CCDC, as a Covered Entity, violated HIPAA by allowing FileFax, Inc. to act as its business associate without adequately complying with HIPAA’s business associate requirements.

With widespread media coverage over large scale breaches of health care and other sensitive information placing further pressure upon OCR and other governmental agencies to act to protect Americans’ privacy and data fueling even greater demands for OCR and other agencies to take meaningful action to enforce HIPAA and other privacy and data security requirements, health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates can expect OCR and other agencies to continue to turn up the heat on investigation and enforcement of HIPAA compliance.

In the face of these developments, Covered Entities, their business associates and those responsible for their leadership and operations need to recognize and take the necessary steps both effectively to manage their own HIPAA compliance and risk management as well as to anticipate and make provision to deal with the likelihood that they may face HIPAA responsibilities, exposures and other fallout from their own or another business partner’s breach of PHI or other sensitive data or other HIPAA violations, bankruptcy or other business distress, or other compliance or business event.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that Covered Entities and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of PHI. As part of these requirements, Covered Entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, Covered Entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the Covered Entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that Covered Entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil monetary penalties or even criminal penalties. Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Resolution Agreements the just announced FileFax Resolution Agreement allow Covered Entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA for HIPAA violations through a negotiated settlement process. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both Covered Entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the Covered Entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the Covered Entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one Covered Entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, Covered Entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Because HIPAA Privacy Rule criminal violations are Class A Misdemeanors or felonies, Covered Entities and business associates should include HIPAA compliance in their Federal Sentencing Guideline Compliance Programs and practices and need to be concerned both about criminal exposure for their own direct violations, as well as imputed organizational liability for violations committed by their employees or agents under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, particularly where their failure to implement or administer these required compliance policies and practices or failure to properly investigate or redress potential violations enables, perpetuates or covers up the criminal breach.

FileFax, Inc. Breach & Resolution Agreement

While Congress amended the Civil Monetary Penalty provisions of HIPAA enforced by OCR to make many of the requirements and Civil Monetary Penalty sanctions of HIPAA directly enforceable by OCR against business associates as part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the FileFax Resolution Agreement appears to be the first HIPAA resolution agreement with a business associate announced by OCR.

Indeed, OCR’s enforcement action that resulted in the FileFax Resolution Agreement would never have occurred had FileFax, Inc. not become involved in handling medical records containing PHI in the capacity of a business associate for Covered Entities.

Before filing for bankruptcy in 2016, FileFax, Inc. advertised it provided HIPAA-compliant storage, maintenance, and delivery of medical records for HIPAA Covered Entities including Illinois based health care provider CCDC, which entered into a resolution agreement with OCR in April, 2017 to resolve OCR charges that it violated HIPAA by allowing FileFax, Inc. to handle PHI without fulfilling HIPAA’s business associate agreement requirements.

Like the CCDC Resolution Agreement, the FileFax, Inc. Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation of FileFax, Inc. that OCR began in response to a February 10, 2015 anonymous complaint filed with OCR about FileFax, Inc. about deficiencies in its delivery of these HIPAA services in its capacity as a business associate to Covered Entities. The complaint to OCR alleged that FileFax, Inc. violated these requirements because an individual transported medical records obtained from FileFax, Inc. to a shredding and recycling facility to sell on February 6 and 9, 2015.

OCR’s investigation of the complaint against FileFax, Inc. confirmed that an individual had left medical records of approximately 2,150 patients at the shredding and recycling facility, and that these medical records contained patients’ PHI. OCR’s investigation additionally found that between January 28, 2015, and February 14, 2015, FileFax, Inc. impermissibly disclosed the PHI of 2,150 individuals by leaving the PHI in an unlocked truck in the FileFax, Inc. parking lot, or by granting permission to an unauthorized person to remove the PHI from FileFax, Inc. and leaving the PHI unsecured outside the FileFax, Inc. facility.

After OCR commenced its investigation of the complaint, FileFax, Inc. was placed into bankruptcy and a receiver was appointed to liquidate FileFax, Inc.’s assets for distribution to creditors and others in 2016. Despite the bankruptcy, OCR continued to pursue enforcement against FileFax, Inc. for the HIPAA violations it found through its investigation. On February 13, 2018, OCR announced that that the receiver on behalf of FileFax, Inc. had agreed in the FileFax Resolution Agreement to pay a $100,000 monetary settlement out of the bankruptcy estate and to arrange to properly store and dispose of remaining medical records found at FileFax, Inc.’s facility in compliance with HIPAA to resolve OCR’s HIPAA charges against FileFax, Inc.

OCR Previously Sanctioned Covered Entity For Involvement With FileFax, Inc.

Beyond affirming the exposure business associates to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for violating HIPAA, the FileFax Resolution Agreement in conjunction with OCR’s previously announced April 20, 2017 resolution agreement (CCDC Resolution Agreement) with CCDC also demonstrates the need for Covered Entities to recognize that their organizations are likely to face HIPAA investigations or enforcement from HIPAA violations by or OCR audits or investigations of the conduct of their business associates.

In fact, this is exactly what happened to CCDC. A small, Illinois based Covered Entity, CCDC used FileFax, Inc. to store and dispose of medical records. As a consequence of the FileFax, Inc. investigation, OCR conducted a compliance review of CCDC. OCR reports that its compliance review revealed that while CCDC had disclosed to and allowed FileFax, Inc. to store records containing PHI for CCDC since in 2003, neither party could produce a signed business associate agreement (BAA) prior to October 12, 2015. As a consequence, OCR charged CCDC with violating HIPAA by disclosing PHI to FileFax, Inc. in violation of HIPAA’s business associate requirements.

To resolve its exposure to potentially much greater civil monetary penalties associated with this charge, CCDC agreed under the CCDC Resolution Agreement to pay OCR a $31,000 resolution payment and take a variety of corrective actions. Beyond requiring CCDC to implement and maintain written business associate agreements before allowing business associates to possess or access PHI, the corrective action plan imposed as part of the CCDC Resolution Agreement also expressly requires CCDC to promptly investigate information of a possible violation of its HIPAA policies and procedures by a “workforce member,” which the Privacy Rule defines to include a business associate, and if the investigation reveals a violation, to report the violation and corrective action taken to OCR.

OCR Enforces HIPAA Against Covered Entities & Business Associates In Bankruptcy

OCR’s announcement of the FileFax Resolution Agreement also is significant in its reaffirmation of OCR to its commitment to HIPAA enforcement, even if the HIPAA-violating Covered Entity or business associate goes bankruptcy.

OCR’s enforcement action against FileFax, Inc. despite its bankruptcy and its successful negotiation of the FileFax Resolution Agreement within the bankruptcy should alert Covered Entities and business associates that OCR does not consider the bankruptcy of a Covered Entity or business associate as an obstacle to OCR enforcement against Covered Entities or business associates that violate HIPAA. The seriousness of OCR’s commitment to enforcement, even in the face of bankruptcy is driven home by its announcement of the FileFax Resolution Agreement on the heels of its December, 2017 announcement of its first OCR HIPAA resolution agreement secured with the formal approval of a bankruptcy court, a resolution agreement (21CO Resolution Agreement) against bankrupt health care provider, 21CO.

Secured with bankruptcy court approval, the 21CO Resolution Agreement resolved potentially much larger civil monetary penalties that the Fort Myers, Florida based provider of cancer care services and radiation oncology could have faced for alleged HIPAA breaches OCR charged it committed in connection with its failure to adequately act to prevent and respond to hacking and misappropriation of records containing sensitive electronic protected health information (ePHI) of up to 2,213597 individuals.

The OCR charges against 21CO arose from an OCR investigation commenced after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified 21CO on November 13, 2015 and a second time on December 13, 2015 than unauthorized third party illegally obtained 21CO sensitive patient information and produced 21CO patient files purchased by a FBI informant. As part of its internal investigation, 21CO hired a third party forensic auditing firm in November 2015. 21CO determined that the attacker may have accessed 21CO’s network SQL database as early as October 3, 2015, through Remote Desktop Protocol from an Exchange Server within 21CO’s network. 21CO determined that it is possible that 2,213,597 individuals may have been affected by the impermissible access to their names, social security numbers, physicians’ names, diagnoses, treatment and insurance information.

Although it knew of the breaches in November and December, 2015, 21CO waited more than three months after the FBI notified it of the breaches before it sent HIPAA or other breach notifications about the data breach to patients or notified investors in March, 2016. Its March 4, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission 8-K on Data Security Incident (Breach 8-K) states 21CO delayed notification at the request of the FBI to avoid interfering in the criminal investigation of the breach.

When announcing the breach, 21CO provided all individuals affected by the breach with a free one-year subscription to the Experian ProtectMyID fraud protection service. At that time, 21CO said it had no evidence that any patient information actually had been misused. However some victims of the breach subsequently have claimed being victimized by a variety of scams since the breach in news reports and lawsuits about the breach.

At the time of the breach and its March 4, 2016 announcement of the breach, 21CO already was working to resolve other compliance issues. On December 16, 2015, 21CO announced that a 21CO subsidiary had agreed to pay $19.75 million to the United States and $528,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs and comply with a corporate integrity agreement related to a qui tam action in which it was accused of making false claims to Medicare and other federal health programs. See 21CO 8-K Re: Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement (December 22, 2015). Among other things, the corporate integrity agreement required by that settlement required 21CO to appoint a compliance officer and take other steps to maintain compliance with federal health care laws. In addition, five days after releasing the March 4, 2017 Breach 8-K, 21CO notified investors that its subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (“21C”), had agreed to pay $37.4 million to settle health care fraud law charges relating to billing and other protocols of certain staff in the utilization of state-of-the-art radiation dose calculation system used by radiation oncologists called GAMMA. See 21CO 8-K Re: GAMMA Settlement March 9, 2016 ; See also United States Settles False Claims Act Allegations Against 21st Century Oncology for $34.7 Million.

Based on OCR’s subsequent investigation into these breaches, OCR found:

21CO impermissibly disclosed certain PHI of 2,213,597 of its patients in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a);
21CO failed to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by 21CO in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
21CO failed to implement certain security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 164.306(A) in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B);
21CO failed to implement procedures to regularly review records of information system activity, such as audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports as required by 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
21CO disclosed protected health information to a third party vendors, acting as its business associates, without obtaining satisfactory assurances in the form of a written business associate agreement in violation of HIPAA’s business associate rule requirements under 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(e) and 164.308(b)(3).

In return for OCR’s agreement not to further pursue charges or penalties relating to the breach investigation, the Resolution Agreement entered into with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court requires that 21CO pay OCR a $2.3 million Resolution Amount and implement to OCR’s satisfaction a corrective action plan that among other things requires that 21CO complete a detailed series of corrective actions to the satisfaction of OCR.

In addition to the OCR investigation that lead to the 21CO Resolution Agreement announced by OCR on December 28, 2017, 21CO experienced other fallout following its March 4, 2016 public disclosure of the breach. Not surprisingly, the breach notification led to a multitude of class-action civil lawsuits by breach victims and shareholders. See, e.g., 16 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against 21st Century Oncology Consolidated; 21st Century Oncology data breach prompts multiple lawsuits. Reports of spoofing and other misleading contacts made to 21CO patients following the breach prompted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a specific notice alerting victims about potential false breach notifications and other misleading contacts. See April 4, 2016 FTC Announcement Re: 21st Century Oncology breach exposes patients’ info.

These and other developments also had significant consequences on 21CO’s financial status and leadership. By March 31, 2015, 21CO notified the SEC and investors that it needed added time to complete its financial statements. Subsequent SEC filings document its restatement of financial statements, the departure of board members and other leaders, default on credit terms, and ultimately its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 25, 2017.

Because 21CO sought bankruptcy court protection from the fallout of its HIPAA breaches and other compliance and business issues, the 21CO Resolution Agreement required bankruptcy court approval. Funds for payment of the required $2.3 million resolution payment and other charges associated with the investigation apparently are being provided in part from breach liability insurance coverage provided under a policy issued by Beazley Insurance, as the Bankruptcy Court order directs Beazley Breach Response Policy No. W140E2150301 to make immediate payment to the OCR of the resolution amount and the payment of fees incurred by 21CO in connection with regulatory defense issues.

HIPAA & Data Breach Enforcement & Other Risks Growing

Covered Entities, their business associates, their leaders, investors and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FileFax, CCDC, 21CO and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement and that their exposure to investigation and enforcement is likely to continue to rise in the face of growing public and Congressional concern about privacy and data security.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, Covered Entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing and that this trend is likely to continue if not increase.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments against Covered Entities and with the FileFax Resolution Agreement announcement, now also business associates for violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

The experiences of FileFax, Inc., CCDC, 21CO and these other OCR HIPAA Resolution Agreements provide strong evidence that that health plans and other Covered Entities and their business associates can anticipate that OCR will continue to zealously investigate HIPAA breaches and other HIPAA violations. Aside from OCR’s recurrent affirmations of its commitment to HIPAA enforcement, Covered Entities, their business associates and their leaders must recognize that public and Congressional privacy and data security concerns fueled by the ever growing stream of massive data breaches at Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses are creating additional pressure upon OCR and other agencies to pursue even stronger and more aggressive HIPAA oversight and enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR, the FTC and other federal and state agencies with regulatory or enforcement authority over HIPAA or other data security and privacy concerns face increasing scrutiny and pressure to take meaningful action to regulate and enforce HIPAA and other laws intended to protect sensitive data even as private litigants enjoy increasing success in obtaining civil judgments from damages resulting from breaches of their PHI or other sensitive personal information using an expanding arsenal of legal theories of recovery. In the face of these growing concerns about privacy and data security, OCR can be expected to continue, if not increase its HIPAA compliance enforcement and oversight by OCR.

Furthermore, the experiences of FileFax, Inc., 21CO, CCDC and other Covered Entities and business associates that already have become the subject of OCR investigation or enforcement also reflect that HIPAA resolution payments or penalties paid to OCR and other costs and expenses associated with the defense and resolution of OCR’s investigations and enforcement actions typically only a portion of the financial and other business consequences that Covered Entities or business associates might expect to incur as a consequence of a breach of PHI or other substantial HIPAA violation or charge.

Beyond their potential HIPAA enforcement exposures following a HIPAA covered data breach or other violation, health care or other Covered Entities and members of their workforce experiencing breaches of ePHI or other PHI often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement relating their data breaches under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other laws. They or members of their workforce may face licensing board, credentialing, accreditation, contractual or other investigations or sanctions. Victims, business partners, investors and others often bring civil litigation to address losses or other injures associated with the breach or other misconduct. In addition, losses and disruptions in patients, plan member, vendor, investor, employee, management and other business relationships, and other business disruptions also are common.

Where the breach of other HIPAA violation involves a health plan, health plans, their fiduciaries and sponsors also need to give due consideration to the implications and exposures that might arise under the fiduciary responsibility rules of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Beyond the direct exposure of their health plan to HIPAA and other compliance liabilities, health plan fiduciaries generally will want to consider whether their fiduciary responsibility under ERISA requires that prudent or other steps be taken to safeguard health plan information and maintain and administer their health plan in accordance with HIPAA and other laws. As a consequence, fiduciaries generally will want to ensure that they take and document prudent steps to evaluate, monitor and address HIPAA and other privacy and data security safeguards to minimize not only the liability exposures of their health plans, but also to help mitigate their own potential personal liability exposures that could arise or be asserted in response to a HIPAA breach or other HIPAA violation involving their health plans.

In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, Covered Entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences. In addition to reaffirming the need for Covered Entities and their business associates to take the necessary steps to maintain and effectively demonstrate the adequacy of their own HIPAA compliance, the CCDC and FileFax Resolution Agreements alert Covered Entities and business associates of the advisability of greater oversight and risk management of their dealings and relationships with the other Covered Entities and business associates with access to or involvement with their PHI or other critical functions.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with Covered Entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the Covered Entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA and its business associate and other privacy, data security and breach notification and response requirements, but also maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data. The bankruptcies and other financial and business fallout of HIPAA or other data breaches experienced by FileFax, Inc. 21CO and other HIPAA-covered and non-HIPAA regulated entities also makes clear that Covered Entities and business associates should anticipate that their own fallout from a breach or other HIPAA event and resulting responsibilities and consequences could be impacted by their own or a business associate’s financial distress or bankruptcy. Beyond the risk that their own or another entity’s breach, compliance issues, or other financial or business issues could trigger breach investigation, notice or other responsibilities for their own organizations, Covered Entities, business associates and their leaders also should evaluate and revise their HIPAA risk assessments and security plans to address foreseeable threats to the availability, access, retention and security of PHI and associated records and systems.

The Bankruptcy Court’s order to 21CO’s cyber liability insurer to pay the resolution payment required under the 21CO Resolution Agreement and other costs of investigation and defense also strongly suggests that the purchase of insurance and other arrangements for funding costs of defense or settlement should be included in these evaluations.

As part of these efforts, Covered Entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well-documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, Covered Entities and business associates should maintain strong and ongoing processes for assessing and monitoring the adequacy of their policies and practices. In addition to ensuring that their organization has a comprehensive risk management and compliance assessment, Covered Entities and business associates need to conduct documented periodic audits and spot HIPAA audits and assessments. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

In connection with these efforts, the enforcement actions make clear that Covered Entities and business associates should adopt, implement and monitor PHI privacy, and security on an entity wide basis. These efforts should include general policies, practices and procedures as well as specifically tailored policies, processes and training to protect PHI and preserve HIPAA compliance throughout their organization. Testing and analysis should be conducted on a regular basis. Documented reassessments and testing should be performed in response to software, hardware or other changes or events that could impact security or other operations. Beyond security, attention also should cover business or system interruption including losses that might occur from the bankruptcy, termination of business or other disruptions of business associates or other parties. Attention should be paid both to protecting access and use of PHI and ePHI in the course of business as well as the transmission, transport, storage and destruction of records or systems containing such information.

Careful attention should be devoted to ensuring that business associate agreements as well and other processes provide for HIPAA compliance with respect to all PHI created, used, accessed or disclosed to business associates or others not part of their direct workforce or operating outside the core boundaries of their facilities.

Covered entities and their business associates also must recognize and design their compliance efforts and documentation recognizing that HIPAA compliance is a living process, which require both constant diligence about changes in systems or other events that may require reevaluation or adjustments, whether from changes in software, systems or processes or external threats.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, Covered Entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

While the Internal Revenue Code traditionally has prohibited businesses and individuals from deducting penalties, fines and other expenditures arising from violations of federal or state laws under Section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 13306 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act creates a new exception for amounts (other than amounts paid or incurred any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the government or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation) that a taxpayer establishes meet the following requirements:

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, Covered Entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, insurers and financial services, and other clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011 and author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other health care, insurance, financial and other privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and leading edge experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here including:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, Anethesiology, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Doctor, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Provider, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, home health, Hospital, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Privacy, Public Policy, Technology, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Fresenius Medical Care Pays $3.5 Million HIPAA Settlement

February 2, 2018

Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) is paying $3.5 million to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and adopting a comprehensive corrective action plan, under a voluntary resolution agreement that settles FMCNA exposures to OCR for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules OCR asserts it found from an investigation it conducted into five separate HIPAA breach reports FMCNA filed in January 21, 2017.

Widespread publicity and fallout from data breaches involving Equifax, Blue Cross, the Internal Revenue Service and many other giant organizations have ramped up public awareness and government concern about health care and other data security. The resulting pressure is adding additional fuel to the already substantial concern of OCR and other agencies about compliance with HIPAA and other data security and breach laws. Like the $2.3 million HIPAA resolution agreement OCR announced with now bankrupt radiation oncology and cancer care provider 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (21CO) earlier this year, see, e.g., $23M Penalty Small Part of 21st Century’s Data Breach Fallout; Offers Data Breach Lessons For Other Businesses, the growing list of OCR resolution agreements and other enforcement actions against FMCNA, 21CO and other covered entities and other legal and market fallout that covered entities and other organizations experience following the announcement of breaches or other security deficiencies make the case for why HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) must prioritize HIPAA compliance and other medical and other data security protection, privacy and risk management a top priority in 2018.

HIPAA Privacy, Security & Breach Notification Rule Responsibilities & Risks

The Privacy Rule requires that health plans, health care providers, health care clearinghouses (covered entities) and their vendors that qualify as “business associates” under HIPAA comply with detailed requirements concerning the protection, use, access, destruction and disclosure of protected health information. As part of these requirements, covered entities and their business associates must adopt, administer and enforce detailed policies and practices, assess, monitor and maintain the security of electronic protected health information (ePHI) and other protected health information, provide notices of privacy practices and breaches of “unsecured” ePHI, afford individuals that are the subject of protected health information certain rights and comply with other requirements as specified by the Privacy, Security and Breach Notification Rules. In addition, covered entities and business associates also must enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Furthermore, the Privacy Rule includes extensive documentation and keeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years and to provide that documentation to OCR upon demand.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil or even criminal penalties. Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Resolution Agreements like the $3.2 million FMCNA resolution agreement allow covered entities and business associates to resolve potentially substantially larger civil monetary penalty liabilities that OCR can impose under the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA. As amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

In addition to these potential civil liability exposures, however, covered entities, their business associates and other individuals or organizations that wrongfully use, access or disclose electronic or other protected health information also can face civil liability under various circumstances. The criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Fresenius Breach, Charges & Settlement Agreement Illustrate Civil Exposures

The FMCNA resolution agreement is another example of a growing list of resolution agreements various HIPAA covered entities have entered into to resolve their exposure to potentially greater liability should OCR assess civil monetary penalties under HIPAA’s civil sanction scheme.

The breach reports filed on January 21, 2017 reported five separate breach incidents occurring between February 23, 2012 and July 18, 2012 implicating the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of five separate FMCNA owned covered entities (FMCNA covered entities): Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Duval Facility in Jacksonville, Florida (FMC Duval Facility); Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Magnolia Grove in Semmes, Alabama (FMC Magnolia Grove Facility); Renal Dimensions, LLC d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Ak-Chin in Maricopa, Arizona (FMC Ak-Chin Facility); Fresenius Vascular Care Augusta, LLC (FVC Augusta); and WSKC Dialysis Services, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care Blue Island Dialysis (FMC Blue Island Facility).

OCR concluded its investigation showed the breaches resulted because FMCNA failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis of potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all of its ePHI. OCR also concluded:

The FMCNA covered entities impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of patients by providing unauthorized access for a purpose not permitted by the Privacy Rule.
FMC Ak-Chin failed to implement policies and procedures to address security incidents.
FMC Magnolia Grove failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of a facility; and the movement of these items within the facility.
FMC Duval and FMC Blue Island failed to implement policies and procedures to safeguard their facilities and equipment therein from unauthorized access, tampering, and theft, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.
FMC Magnolia Grove and FVC Augusta failed to implement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI, when it was reasonable and appropriate to do so under the circumstances.

In addition to a $3.5 million monetary settlement, a corrective action plan requires the FMCNA covered entities to complete a risk analysis and risk management plan, revise policies and procedures on device and media controls as well as facility access controls, develop an encryption report, and educate its workforce on policies and procedures.

HIPAA Enforcement A Growing Risk

Covered entities, their business associates and members of their workforce need to recognize that the FMCNA and other resolution agreements are part of a growing trend, rather than isolated incidents of enforcement.

While civil monetary penalty enforcement remains much more common than criminal prosecution, covered entities, their business associates and members of their workforce must understand that HIPAA enforcement and resulting liability is growing.

While Department of Justice federal criminal prosecutions and convictions under HIPAA remain relatively rare, they occur and are growing. See e.g., Former Hospital Employee Sentenced for HIPAA Violations (Texas man sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for obtaining protected health information with the intent to use it for personal gain); Three Life Sentences Imposed On Man Following Convictions For Drug Trafficking, Kidnapping, Using Firearms and HIPAA Violations (drug king pin gets multiple 10 year consecutive prison terms for unauthorized access to private health information in violation of HIPAA; his health care worker friend sentenced for accessing electronic medical files and reporting information to him); Former Therapist Charged In HIPAA Case; Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former assisted living facility worker gets 37 months in prison after pleading guilty to wrongful disclosure of HIPAA protected information and other charges); Hefty Prison Sentence in ID Theft Case (former medical supply company owner sentenced to 12 years for HIPAA violations and fraud). While the harshest sentences tend to be associated with health care fraud or other criminal conduct, lighter criminal sentences are imposed against defendants in other cases as well. See e.g., Sentencing In S.C. Medicaid Breach Case (former South Carolina state employee sentenced to three years’ probation, plus community service, for sending personal information about more than 228,000 Medicaid recipients to his personal e-mail account.); HIPAA Violation Leads To Prison Term (former UCLA Healthcare System surgeon gets four months in prison after admitting he illegally read private electronic medical records of celebrities and others.)

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare and OCR to date only actually has assessed HIPAA civil monetary penalties against certain Covered Entities for violating HIPAA in a couple isolated instances, the growing list of multi-million dollar resolution payments that FMCNA and other covered entities caught violating HIPAA make clear that HIPAA enforcement is both meaningful and growing. See e.g., Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules ($3.2 million Children’s Medical Center HIPAA Civil Monetary Penalty); 1st HIPAA Privacy Civil Penalty of $4.3 Million Signals CMS Serious About HIPAA Enforcement; $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

Coming on the heels of an already lengthy and growing list of OCR high dollar HIPAA enforcement actions, the FMCNA and other resolution agreements and civil monetary penalties these and other announced enforcement actions clearly reflect that OCR takes HIPAA compliance seriously and stands ready to impose substantial penalties when it finds violations in connection with breach notice investigations. Viewed in the context of these and other enforcement actions, the FMCNA Resolution Agreement and others clearly reflect the time for complacency in HIPAA compliance and leniency in HIPAA HIPAA enforcement are passed. Rather, these and other enforcement actions make clear why health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates must make HIPAA compliance a priority now.

Covered entities and business associates also should recognize their potential responsibilities and risks for breaches or other improper conduct concerning patient or other sensitive personal financial information, trade secrets or other data under a wide range of laws beyond HIPAA and its state law equivalents. As documented by the media coverage of the legal and business woes of Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses have and continue to incur from data breaches within their organizations, health care or other covered entities experiencing breaches often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other rules as well as business losses and disruptions; civil litigation from breach victims, shareholders and investors, and business partners as well as OCR, FTC, and state data security regulation enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR has indicated that it intends to continue to diligently both seek to support and encourage voluntary compliance by covered entities and their business associates and investigate and enforce HIPAA against HIPAA covered entities and their business associates that fail to adequately safeguard PHI and ePHI in accordance with HIPAA. In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, covered entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences.

In light of these rises, leaders, investors, insurers, lenders and others involved with covered entities and their business associates should take steps to verify that the covered entities and their business associates not only maintain compliance with HIPAA, but also comply with data security, privacy and other information protection requirements arising under other laws, regulations, and contracts, as well as the practical business risks that typically follow the announcement of a breach. Considering these risks, covered entities and their business associates must recognize and take meaningful, documented action to verify their existing compliance and ongoing oversight to ensure their organizations can demonstrate appropriate action to maintain appropriate practices, insurance and other safeguards to prevent, respond to and mitigate exposures in the event of a breach of protected health information or other sensitive data.

In response to these growing risks and concerns, covered entities and their business associates should ensure that they have conducted, and maintain and are ready to produce appropriate policies and procedures backed up by a well documented, up-to-date industry wide risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to breaches or other misuse of electronic or other protected health information. The starting point of these efforts should be to adopt and enforce updated written policies, procedures, technical and physical safeguards, processes and training to prevent the improper use, access, destruction or disclosure of patient PHI. Processes also should create, retain and be designed to cost effectively track, capture, and retain both all protected health information, its use, access, protection, destruction and disclosure, and the requisite supportive documentation supporting the appropriateness of those action to position the organization cost-effectively and quickly to fulfill required accounting, reporting and other needs in the event of a data breach, audit, participant inquiry or other event.

As part of this process, covered entities and business associates should start by reviewing and updating their policies, HIPAA audits and assessments and other documentation and processes. In doing so, they must use care to look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies and core operating systems to ensure that their policies, practices, oversight and training address all protected health information within their operations on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

Because the cost of responding to and investigating breaches or other compliance concern can be quite burdensome, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to pursue options to plan for and minimize potential expenses in the design and administration of their programs as well as to minimize and cover the potentially extraordinary costs of breach or other compliance investigation and results that commonly arise following a breach or other compliance event. As a part of this planning, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures.

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, covered entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011 and author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other health care, insurance, financial and other privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and leading edge experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here including:

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, ARRA, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, Laws, Licensing, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Tagged: Compliance, Corporate Compliance, Crisis preparedness, Cybercrime, dta breach, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, HIPAA, Medical Privacy, OCR, Privacy, public health, SEC | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Bankrupt Oncology Provider’s $2.3M Settlement Payment & Other HIPAA Breach Consequences Shows Why To Prioritize HIPAA Compliance In 2018

December 29, 2017

The just-announced agreement $2.3 million (Resolution Amount) settlement by now bankrupt radiation oncology and cancer care provider 21st Century Oncology, Inc. (21CO) is paying to settle Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules violation charges and other continuing post-breach fallout that helped push 21CO to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection demonstrates again why HIPAA-covered health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and their business associates (covered entities) must make HIPAA compliance and risk management a high priority in 2018.

Distinctive as the first HIPAA resolution agreement requiring bankruptcy court approval and for the bankruptcy court’s order including a direction to the covered entity’s cyber liability insurer to pay the Resolution Payment and other investigation defense expenses, the 21CO resolution agreement resolves potential civil monetary penalty exposures the Fort Myers, Florida based provider of cancer care services and radiation oncology could have faced from the Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) charges it violated HIPAA’s Privacy and Security Rules arising from the hacking and misappropriation of records containing sensitive electronic protected health information (ePHI) of up to 2,213597 individuals.

When their own 2018 HIPAA or other compliance investigation activities or planning HIPAA compliance and risk management activities, covered entities and their business associates and their leaders should use 21CO’s painful post-breach lessons experience to minimize their own HIPAA breach exposures, as well as consider how amendments to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(f) might impact the tax deductibility of certain compliance expenditures.

21CO HIPAA Breaches & Fallout

The OCR charges against 21CO arose from an OCR investigation commenced after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified 21CO on November 13, 2015 and a second time on December 13, 2015 than unauthorized third-party illegally obtained 21CO sensitive patient information and produced 21CO patient files purchased by a FBI informant. As part of its internal investigation, 21CO hired a third party forensic auditing firm in November 2015. 21CO determined that the attacker may have accessed 21CO’s network SQL database as early as October 3, 2015, through Remote Desktop Protocol from an Exchange Server within 21CO’s network. 21CO determined that it is possible that 2,213,597 individuals may have been affected by the impermissible access to their names, social security numbers, physicians’ names, diagnoses, treatment and insurance information.

Although it knew of the breaches in November and December, 2015, 21CO delayed notifying patients of the data breach for more than three months after the FBI notified it of the breaches before it sent HIPAA or other breach notifications about the data breach to patients or notified investors in March, 2016. Its March 4, 2016 Securities and Exchange Commission 8-K on Data Security Incident (Breach 8-K) states 21CO delayed notification at the request of the FBI to avoid interfering in the criminal investigation of the breach.

When announcing the breach, 21CO provided all individuals affected by the breach with a free one-year subscription to the Experian ProtectMyID fraud protection service. At that time, 21CO said it had no evidence that any patient information actually had been misused. However victims of the breach subsequently are claiming being victimized by a variety of scams since the breach in news reports and lawsuits about the breach.

As the breeches impacted more than 500 individuals, 21CO’s HIPAA breaches were considered large breaches for purposes of the Breach Notification Rules. It is the policy of OCR to investigate all large breach notifications filed under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rules.

Based on OCR’s subsequent investigation into these breaches, OCR found:

21CO impermissibly disclosed certain PHI of 2,213,597 of its patients in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a);
21CO failed to conduct an accurate and thorough assessment of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the electronic protected health information (ePHI) held by 21CO in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A);
21CO failed to implement certain security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 164.306(A) in violation of 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(B);
21CO failed to implement procedures to regularly review records of information system activity, such as audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports as required by 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
21CO disclosed protected health information to a third-party vendors, acting as its business associates, without obtaining satisfactory assurances in the form of a written business associate agreement in violation of HIPAA’s business associate rule requirements under 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502(e) and 164.308(b)(3).

The Resolution Agreement settles potential charges and exposures to potentially much higher civil monetary penalties that 21CO could have faced had OCR successfully prosecuted charges against 21CO for the breaches. In return for OCR’s agreement not to further pursue charges or penalties relating to the breach investigation, the Resolution Agreement requires that 21CO pay OCR a $2.3 million Resolution Amount and implement to OCR’s satisfaction a corrective action plan that among other things requires that 21CO complete the following corrective actions to the satisfaction of OCR:

To complete a risk analysis and risk management plan;
To revise its HIPAA policies and procedures regarding information system activity review to require the regular review of audit logs, access reports, and security incident tracking reports pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D);
To revise its policies and procedures regarding access establishment and modification and termination pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(4)(ii)(C) and 45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(3)(ii)(C) to include protocols for access to 21CO’s e-PHI by affiliated physicians, their practices, and their employees.
To distribute its policies to and educate its workforce on the updated and other HIPAA policies and procedures;
To provide OCR with an accounting of 21CO’s business associates that includes names of business associates, a description of services provided, a description of the business associate’s handling of 21CO’s PHI, the date services began and copies of the actual business associate agreement with each business associate; and
Submit an internal monitoring plan to OCR.

In addition to the OCR investigation that lead to the new HIPAA resolution agreement announced by OCR on December 28, 2017, 21CO experienced other fallout following its March 4, 2016 public disclosure of the breach. Not surprisingly, the breach notification led to a multitude of class-action civil lawsuits by breach victims and shareholders. See, e.g., 16 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed Against 21st Century Oncology Consolidated; 21st Century Oncology data breach prompts multiple lawsuits. Reports of spoofing and other misleading contacts made to 21CO patients following the breach prompted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a specific notice alerting victims about potential false breach notifications and other misleading contacts. See April 4, 2016 FTC Announcement Re: 21st Century Oncology breach exposes patients’ info.

Insurer Funding $2.3 Million Settlement Payment For Bankrupt 21CO

The 21CO resolution agreement required bankruptcy court approval, Funds for payment of the required $2.3 million resolution payment and other charges associated with the investigation apparently are being provided in part from breach liability insurance coverage provided under a policy issued by Beazley Insurance, as the Bankruptcy Court order directs Beazley Breach Response Policy No. W140E2150301 to make immediate payment to the OCR of the resolution amount and the payment of fees incurred by 21CO in connection with regulatory defense issues.

Settlements Highlight Growing Risks Of Noncompliance, Lack Data Security

One of a growing multitude of multimillion dollar HIPAA resolution agreements to avoid HIPAA civil monetary sanctions that OCR already has announced, the 21CO resolution agreement announcement also comes when a steady stream of reports of massive data breaches at Alteryx, eBay, Paypal owner TIO Networks, Uber, Equifax and a long list of other previously trusted prominent businesses are stoking government and public awareness and concern over health care and other data privacy and cybersecurity. Beyond their potential HIPAA enforcement exposures, health care or other covered entities experiencing breaches often also face FTC or other government investigations and enforcement under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) and other federal or state identity theft, data privacy and security, electronic crimes and other rules as well as business losses and disruptions; civil litigation from breach victims, shareholders and investors, and business partners as well as OCR, FTC, and state data security regulation enforcement. Amid this growing concern, OCR has indicated that it intends to continue to diligently both seek to support and encourage voluntary compliance by covered entities and their business associates and investigate and enforce HIPAA against HIPAA covered entities and their business associates that fail to adequately safeguard PHI and ePHI in accordance with HIPAA. In the face of these growing risks and liabilities, covered entities and their business leaders face a strong imperative to clean up and maintain their HIPAA compliance and other data security to minimize their exposure to similar consequences.

As a part of this planning, covered entities and their business associates also generally will want to add consideration of changes to federal tax rules on the deductibility of compliance penalty and other related compliance expenditures. While the Internal Revenue Code traditionally has prohibited businesses and individuals from deducting penalties, fines and other expenditures arising from violations of federal or state laws under Section 162(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 13306 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act creates a new exception for amounts (other than amounts paid or incurred any amount paid or incurred as reimbursement to the government or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation) that a taxpayer establishes meet the following requirements:

Constitute restitution (including remediation of property) for damage or harm which was or may be caused by the violation of any law or the potential violation of any law, or
Are paid to come into compliance with any law which was violated or otherwise involved in the investigation or inquiry into a violation or potential violation of any law;
Are identified as restitution or as an amount paid to come into compliance with such law, as the case may be, in the court order or settlement agreement, and
In the case of any amount of restitution for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax, would have been allowed as a deduction under this chapter if it had been timely paid.

Because the true effect of these modifications will be impacted by implementing regulations and a number of other special conditions and rules may impact the deductibility of these payments and the reporting obligations attached to their payment, covered entities will want to consult with legal counsel about these rules and monitor their implementation to understand their potential implications on compliance expenditures and penalties.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011 and author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on HIPAA and other health care, insurance, financial and other privacy and data security, Ms. Stamer is widely known for her extensive and leading edge experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here including:

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.

HHS Picks Hargan As Acting HHS Secretary

October 11, 2017

President Trump has appointed Eric D. Hargan Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Hargan, who was just sworn into office as Deputy Secretary of HHS on Oct. 6, 2017, takes over the duties of former Secretary Dr. Tom Price, who recently resigned in response to criticism about his expenditures for charter flights.

Before joining HHS, Mr. Hargan was an attorney, most recently a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig’s Chicago office in the Health and FDA Business department, where he focused his practice on transactions, healthcare regulations and government relations. He represented investors, companies, and individuals in healthcare investments and issues across the entire sector.

From 2003 to 2007, Mr. Hargan served at HHS in a variety of capacities, ultimately holding the position of Acting Deputy Secretary. During his tenure at HHS, Mr. Hargan also served as the Department’s Regulatory Policy Officer, overseeing the development and approval of all HHS, CMS, and FDA regulations and significant guidances.

Prior to this role, he served HHS as Deputy General Counsel. More recently, he was tapped by Governor Bruce Rauner to serve during transition as lead co-chair for Gov. Rauner’s Healthcare and Human Services committee.

During his time in Illinois, Mr. Hargan taught at Loyola Law School in Chicago, focusing on administrative law and healthcare regulations. He was a member of the U.S. government team at the inaugural U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in Beijing in 2006-2007, worked with the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control to advance biosecurity in developing nations, and initiated and led the HHS team that developed the first responses to international food safety and importation issues in 2007.

He received his B.A. cum laude from Harvard University, and his J.D. from Columbia University Law School, where he was Senior Editor of the Columbia Law Review. Mr. Hargan also received a Certificate in International Law from the Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law at Columbia University.

Before returning to Washington, D.C., Mr. Hargan lived in the suburbs of Chicago with his wife, Emily, and their two sons.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management, disaster and other crisis preparedness and response, and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes career long involvement in advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disaster and other crisis preparation, response and mitigation arising from natural and man-made disasters, government enforcement, financial distress, workplace emergencies and accidents, data breach and other cybersecurity and other events. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and publisher disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Affordable Care Act, Anti-KickBack, ASC, Centers For Disease Control, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, data breach, data security, DEA, Doctor, Electronic Medical Records, EMTALA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health care coding, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Care Reform, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HHS, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, OIG, Outcomes Data, Outpatient, Peer Review, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Prospective Payment, Psychiatric, public health, Public Policy, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Reproductive Rights, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, Stark, Substance Abuse, substance abuse treatment, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Wellness | Tagged: Affordable Care Act, controlled substance, drugs, false claims act, Health Care, Health Care Compliance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Reimbursement, Health Plans, HEAT, HHS, HIPAA, Hospital, Medicaid, Medicare, OCR, pain management, pharmacist, pharmacy, Physician, Physicians, Privacy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

OCR Gives Health Care Providers, Other Covered Entities Post-Las Vegas Shooting HIPAA Medical Privacy Guidance On Disclosures To Family, Media & Others For Notification & Other Purposes

October 9, 2017

Widespread media coverage of this week’s Las Vegas, Nevada mass shooting (Las Vegas Shooting), and recent Hurricanes in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico shows the barrage of requests for patient information from emergency and disaster response personnel, concerned family and friends, the media or others about the identity, status and other circumstances of patients and other individuals that health care providers caring for patients following a mass disaster or other emergency.

The tight restrictions and potentially stiff penalties authorized under the Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rule (Privacy Rule) on health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) for improperly disclosing information about identifiable patients under the Privacy Rule necessitate that health care providers and other Covered Persons exercise great care to ensure that statements and other disclosures of identifiable patient information either are authorized in writing in accordance with HIPAA or otherwise specifically allowed under the Privacy Rule. See, e.g., $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI; $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Message Warns Health Plans & Providers Against Sharing Medical Info With Media, Others; $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Following the Las Vegas Shooting, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on October 3, 2017 issued an announcement on “Disclosures to Family, Friends, and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification” (Announcement) intended to clarify certain limited situations when OCR interprets the Privacy Rule as allowing Covered Entities to disclose PHI to individuals involved in the patient’s care, the media or other parties not involved in the patient’s care for notification purposes without prior patient authorization. Health care providers and other Covered Entities should review and update their existing Privacy Rule policies, practices and training in response to this and other evolving guidance to help prepare their teams appropriately to respond to family, media and other inquiries about patients in emergency and other circumstances.

Privacy Rule Generally

While mass shooting events like the Las Vegas Shooting, recent hurricanes, Ebola or other contagious disease outbreak and other mass injury or illness events garner widespread media and public attention, health care providers and other Covered Entities also regularly field requests for PHI about current or former patients from family and others involved in patients’ care or treatment, law enforcement, law enforcement, and the media or other members of the general public not involved in patient care.

The Privacy Rule generally requires Covered Entities to keep confidential, and prohibits Covered Entities from disclosing individually identifiable health care information about a patient that qualifies as “protected health information” or “PHI” without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization unless the disclosure meets all the requirements to fall under an exception defined in the Privacy Rule.

Since HIPAA’s broad definition of PHI encompasses even the name, identity and even existence of a patient, as well as more specific information about the current or past health condition and treatment of a patient, health care providers and other Covered Entities must prepare and train their staff to be prepared appropriately to comply with the Privacy Rules even when considering disclosing PHI to identify an incapacitated patient, notify or respond to inquiries of family or others involved in caring for patient during an emergency or disaster.

As OCR guidance consistently reaffirms, the Privacy Rule’s general prohibition against PHI without prior patient authorization and other requirements generally still apply during public health or other emergencies.[1] While Social Security Act § 1135(b)(7) allows HHS temporarily to waive sanctions and penalties for violations of some, but not all Privacy Rule requirements by a covered hospitals operating under disaster protocols during periods the President declares an emergency or disaster and the HHS Secretary declares a public health emergency as in response to Hurricanes Katrina,[2]Harvey,[3] Irma,[4] and Maria,[5] this relief is rarely applicable, and limited in scope, applicability and duration.[6] Consequently, Covered Entities still need to ensure that any contemplated disclosure is either authorized or meets all requirements the Privacy Rule requires to fall under an exemption to its general prohibition against unauthorized disclosure to avoid becoming subject to civil or even criminal sanctions under the Privacy Rule even when responding to inquiries during mass disaster, public health emergency or other exigent circumstances.

As discussed in November 2016 OCR Bulletin On HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations, the Privacy Rule includes various exceptions that may allow a health care provider or other Covered Entity to disclose the PHI of a patient involved in a public health or other emergency without patient authorization including:

PHI about the patient necessary to treat the patient or to treat a different patient including the coordination or management of health care and related services by one or more health care providers and others, consultation between providers, and the referral of patients for treatment. See 45 CFR §§ 164.502(a)(1)(ii), 164.506(c), and the definition of “treatment” at 164.501;
To a public health authority, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or a state or local health department, authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury or disability. See 45 CFR §§ 164.501 and 164.512(b)(1)(i);
As necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health and safety of a person or the public when consistent with applicable law (such as state statutes, regulations, or case law) and the provider’s standards of ethical conduct. See 45 CFR 164.512(j);
To a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care or as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death provided that the Covered Entity gets at least verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible; or if the individual is incapacitated or not available, in the Covered Entity’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest. See 45 CFR 164.510(b);
With disaster relief organizations that, like the American Red Cross, are authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death without authorization if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency; or
Limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) to the media or others not involved in the care of the patient upon request for information about a particular patient by name, if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).

Announcement Clarifies Privacy Rules For Disclosures To Individuals Involved In Patient’s Care; For Notification; And To Media Or Others Not Involved In Patient Care

The new OCR Announcement provides clarification of the applicability of the Privacy Rule exemptions regarding disclosures of PHI by health care providers or other Covered Entities:

To individuals involved in the patient’s care or for notification purposes; or
To media or other individuals not involved in the patient’s care.

In addition, the Announcement also reminds Covered Entities:

Of their responsibility to limit disclosures made without HIPAA-compliant patient authorization other than for treatment purposes to the minimum necessary,
That the Privacy Rule allows Covered Entities to rely upon certifications that information requested by public health authorities or officials that the information requested is the minimum necessary; and
To continue to enforce role-based restrictions on PHI.
Disclosures to Family, Friends, Disaster Relief Responders and Others Involved in an Individual’s Care and for Notification

Privacy Rule §164.510(b) permits a Covered Entity to share PHI:

With a patient’s family members, relatives, friends, or other persons identified by the patient as involved in the patient’s care.
About a patient as necessary to identify, locate, and notify family members, guardians, or anyone else responsible for the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. This may include, where necessary to notify family members and others, the police, the press, or the public at large. See Privacy Rule § 164.510(b).

When making such disclosures, the Announcement states a Covered Entity should get verbal permission from individuals or otherwise be able to reasonably infer that the patient does not object, when possible.

Concerning patients who are unconscious or incapacitated, the OCR guidance also states that a health care provider may share relevant information about the patient with family, friends, or others involved in the patient’s care or payment for care, if the health care provider in its professional judgement determines that doing so is in the best interests of the patient.

In addition, OCR says Covered Entities also may share PHI with disaster relief organizations that, like the American Red Cross, are authorized by law or by their charters to assist in disaster relief efforts, for the purpose of coordinating the notification of family members or other persons involved in the patient’s care, of the patient’s location, general condition, or death. When disclosing PHI to disaster relief organizations, the Announcement states it is unnecessary to obtain a patient’s permission to share the information in this situation if doing so would interfere with the organization’s ability to respond to the emergency.

Disclosures to the Media or Others Not Involved in the Care of the Patient/Notification

As the Las Vegas Shooting illustrates, health care providers and other Covered Entities caring for patients during public health or other emergency situations often must deal with news or other media crews on or around treatment or other health care facilities and media and inquiries from the media or others about the identity, status or other PHI of patients. OCR’s past imposition of stiff penalties against other Covered Entities for improperly disclosing patient PHI to the media or the public without authorization alert Covered Entities of HIPAA risks of failing to properly control access and disclosures of PHI to the media or other general public without obtaining prior written authorization from patients or their personal representatives. See e.g., $2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI. See also HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce.

Previously issued OCR guidance makes clear that health care providers and other Covered Entities risk sanction both from allowing media or other members of the public inappropriate access to patient treatment or other areas with unsecured PHI as well as media statements and other disclosures of PHI to the media or public without first obtaining a HIPAA-compliant authorization except under narrow circumstances specified in the Privacy Rule.. See 45 CFR 164.510(a). OCR FAQ on Disclosures to the Media, for instance, states:

“the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not permit health care providers to disclose PHI to media personnel, including film crews, without having previously obtained a HIPAA-compliant authorization signed by the patient or his or her personal representative. In other words, health care providers may not allow members of the media, including film crews, into treatment areas of their facilities or other areas where PHI will be accessible in written, electronic, oral or other visual or audio form, without prior authorization from the patients who are or will be in the area or whose PHI will be accessible to the media. It is not sufficient for a health care provider to request or require media personnel to mask the identities of patients (using techniques such as blurring, pixilation, or voice alteration software) for whom an authorization was not obtained, because the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not allow media access to the patients’ PHI, absent an authorization, in the first place.

In addition, the health care provider must ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to protect against impermissible disclosures or to limit incidental disclosures of other PHI that may be in the area but for which an authorization has not been obtained.

While emphasizing the Privacy Rule’s general requirement to secure advance authorization, OCR FAQ on Disclosures to the Media also recognizes the following “very limited situations” that the Privacy Rule permits a Covered Entity to disclose limited PHI to the media without obtaining a HIPAA authorization:

A Covered Entity may disclose limited PHI about an unidentified incapacitated patient to the media seek to have the media help identify or locate the family of an unidentified and incapacitated patient in its care if, in the hospital’s professional judgment, doing so is in the patient’s best interest. See 45 C.F.R. 164.510(b)(1)(ii);
A Covered Entity may disclose a patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms that do not communicate specific medical information about the individual to any person, including the media, without obtaining a HIPAA authorization where the individual has not objected to his information being included in the facility directory, and the media representative or other person asks for the individual by name. See 45 C.F.R. 164.510(a);
The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not require health care providers to prevent members of the media from entering areas of their facilities that are otherwise generally accessible to the public, which may include public waiting areas or areas where the public enters or exits the facility;
A health care provider may utilize the services of a contract film crew to produce training videos or public relations materials on the provider’s behalf if certain protections are in place. If patients are to be identified by the provider and interviewed by a film crew, or if PHI might be accessible during filming or otherwise disclosed, the provider must enter into a HIPAA business associate agreement with the film crew acting as a business associate. Among other requirements, the business associate agreement must ensure that the film crew will safeguard the PHI it obtains, only use or disclose the PHI for the purposes provided in the agreement, and return or destroy any PHI after the work for the health care provider has been completed. See 45 C.F.R. 164.504(e)(2). As a business associate, the film crew must comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and a number of provisions in the Privacy Rule, including the Rule’s restrictions on the use and disclosure of PHI. In addition, authorizations from patients whose PHI is included in any materials would be required before such materials are posted online, printed in brochures for the public, or otherwise publicly disseminated; and
Covered Entities can continue to inform the media of their treatment services and programs so that the media can better inform the public, provided that, in doing so, the Covered Entity does not share PHI with the media without the prior authorization of the individuals who are the subject of the PHI.

The Announcement reaffirms the general principles stated in this and other prior guidance concerning Covered Entities dealings with the media and public and clarifies its interpretation about what PHI, if any, the Privacy Rule allows hospitals and other health care providers about PHI may share in response to requests from the media or other individuals not involved in the care of a patient without first obtaining an authorization.

The Announcement reaffirms that affirmative reporting to the media or the public at large about an identifiable patient, or the disclosure to the public or media of specific information about treatment of an identifiable patient, such as specific tests, test results or details of a patient’s illness, may not be done without the patient’s written authorization (or the written authorization of a personal representative who is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions for the patient) that complies with HIPAA’s authorization requirements. See 45 CFR 164.508.

The Announcement also clarifies, however, that Covered Entities that are hospitals or health care facilities that receive a request for information about a particular patient by name may release limited facility directory information to acknowledge an individual is a patient at the facility and provide basic information about the patient’s condition in general terms (e.g., critical or stable, deceased, or treated and released) if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information or, if the patient is incapacitated, if the disclosure is believed to be in the best interest of the patient and is consistent with any prior expressed preferences of the patient.

Minimum Necessary Requirements & Other Privacy Rule Responsibility Reminders

The Announcement also cautions Covered Entities of the need to ensure beyond ensuring that a disclosure falls under a Privacy Rule exception, Covered Entities also need to ensure that other requirements of the Privacy Rule applicable to the disclosure also are met. In this respect, the Announcement cautions Covered Entities that the Privacy Rule requires they limit any otherwise permitted disclosure of PHI other than for treatment purposes made without obtaining a HIPAA-compliant patient authorization to the minimum necessary to achieve the allowed purpose, while also reminding Covered Entities that when making disclosures otherwise permitted to public health authorities or public officials, the Privacy Rule allows the Covered Entity to rely on representations from a public health authority or other public official that the requested information is the minimum necessary for the purpose.

Furthermore, the Announcement also warns Covered Entity that they should continue to apply their role-based access policies to limit access to PHI to only those workforce members who need it to carry out their duties. See Privacy Rules §§ 164.502(b), 164.514(d).

In addition to keeping in mind these Privacy Rule conditions, Covered Entities also need to take steps to ensure that their organizations and workforce also continue to follow all necessary procedures to ensure that their organizations can demonstrate continued compliance with other Privacy Rule requirements on verification, documentation and recordkeeping, accounting for disclosure, business associates and the like. In this regard, it is important that Covered Entities and their business associates take appropriate steps to ensure that their workforce carefully creates and retains the documentation and records needed to defend their actions as well as to respond to HHS requests and/or requests for accounting or disclosure that might arise in the future.

Required Action: Review & Update Emergency & Other Practices, Training In Response To Evolving Guidance

The Privacy Rules and other OCR guidance make clear that health care providers and other Covered Entities and their business associates are expected both to implement and maintain their practices, policies, workforce training and safeguards appropriately to control use, access and disclosure in emergency and other situations as well as to implement the necessary systems and safeguards to protect sensitive PHI, electronic PHI and associated records and system from improper access from the media or others and damage or destruction from disaster or other events.

In recognition that maintaining Privacy and Security Rule Compliance can prove challenging for Covered Entities and their business associates during emergency or other exigent events, OCR has published various other guidance it hopes will help Covered Entities and business associates prepare for and respond to these challenges including its Disclosure For Emergency Preparedness Decision Tool; and Public Health Authority Disclosure Request Checklist.

Covered Entities and their business associates should act promptly to review and update their policies, practices, safeguards and workforce training as needed in response to the new Announcement and other OCR guidance promptly.

About The Author

Repeatedly recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Council, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney, management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for health and managed care, employee benefits, insurance and financial services, data and technology and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Nationally recognized for her work, experience, leadership and publications on HIPAA and other medical privacy and data use and security, FACTA, GLB, trade secrets and other privacy and data security concerns, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with clients and the government on cybersecurity, technology and processes and other issues involved in the use and management of medical, insurance and other financial, workforce, trade secrets and other sensitive data and information throughout her career. Scribe or co-scribe of the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Agency meeting with OCR since 2011, Ms. Stamer extensive experience, advising, representing, training and coaching health care providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, business associates, their information technology and other solutions providers and vendors, and others on HIPAA and other privacy, data security and cybersecurity design, documentation, administration, audit and oversight, business associate and other data and technology contracting, breach investigation and response, and other related concerns including extensive involvement representing clients in dealings with OCR and other Health & Human Services, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Labor, Department of Treasury, state health, insurance and attorneys’ general, Congress and state legislators and other federal officials.

Ms. Stamer also has an extensive contributes her leadership and insights with other professionals, industry leaders and lawmakers. Her insights on HIPAA risk management and compliance often appear in medical privacy related publications of a broad range of health care, health plan and other industry publications Among others, she has conducted privacy training for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans (ASTHO), the Los Angeles Health Department, SHRM, HIMMS, the American Bar Association, the Health Care Compliance Association, a multitude of health plan, insurance and financial services, education, employer employee benefit and other clients, trade and professional associations and others. You can get more information about her HIPAA and other experience here. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

[1] See e.g. OCR Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations (November 2014).

[2] Disclosing PHI in Emergency Situations; Compliance Guidance and Enforcement Statement.

[3] August 2017 Hurricane Harvey Bulletin.

[4] September 2017 Hurricane Irma Bulletin.

[5] September 2017 Hurricane Maria Bulletin

[6] The HIPAA Privacy Rule is not suspended during a public health or other emergency; however, Section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act allows HHS to waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with the following provisions of the Privacy Rule events if the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency:

the requirements to obtain a patient’s agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care. See 45 CFR 164.510(b).
the requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory. See 45 CFR 164.510(a).
the requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices. See 45 CFR 164.520.
the patient’s right to request privacy restrictions. See 45 CFR 164.522(a).
the patient’s right to request confidential communications. See 45 CFR 164.522(b).

If the Secretary issues such a waiver, it only applies: (1) in the emergency area and for the emergency

period identified in the public health emergency declaration; (2) to hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol; and (3) for up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.

When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol. See also Social Security Act 1135(b)(7); Frequently Asked Question: HIPAA waiver during a national or public health emergency; OCR Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations (November 2014).

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, ARRA, ASC, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Disaster Relief, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, Health Policy, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospital, Hospital, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Joint Commission, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Privacy, Psychiatric, Skilled Nursing Facility, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized, Veterans Health Administration | Tagged: Crisis preparedness, Cybercrime, Disaster, dta breach, Emergency, Health Care, HIPAA, Hurricane, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria, Las Vegas Shooting, Mass Shooting, Medical Privacy, OCR, Privacy, public health, Terrorism | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Oklahoma Nursing Home Settles HHS HIV Discrimination Charges

September 8, 2017

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has entered into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement with Heritage Hills Living & Rehabilitation Center, LLC (Heritage Hills) that resolves a HHS complaint alleging that Heritage Hills discharged a seriously ill patient from its facility upon learning that she was HIV positive and in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. Part of HHS’ expanding civil rights enforcement emphasis, the resolution agreement reminds health care providers and others receiving or providing services funded by programs managed by HHS of their growing exposure to civil rights prosecutions and liability for failing to comply with federal civil rights law nondiscrimination rules.

Heritage Hills is a for-profit, 81-bed, certified skilled nursing facility located in the City of McAlester, in Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. Because Heritage Hills receives Federal financial assistance through its participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, it is subject to the requirements of Section 504 and Section 1557.

Heritage Hills agreed to resolve the complaint after OCR initiated an investigation into whether Heritage Hills discriminated against the complainant’s daughter on the basis of the daughter’s disability (HIV/AIDS) in violation of Section 504 and Section 1557.

Under the Resolution Agreement, Heritage Hills agrees to:

Ensure compliance with Section 504 and Section 1557;
Report admissions and discharge data to OCR for a 12 month period;
Appoint a Civil Rights Coordinator;
Publish and post a new non-discrimination policy;
Iimplement a new patient grievance procedure and inform patients of their right to file complaints with OCR;
Rrequire its staff to receive training on HIV/AIDS and Federal non-discrimination obligations; and
Rrevise its admissions policy to ensure that all individuals with disabilities, including but not limited to HIV/AIDS, are provided equal access to and an equal opportunity to participate in all programs, benefits and services offered by the facility.

The HHS enforcement action reminds health care providers about the importance of properly managing their civil rights compliance. During the last five years, OCR has engaged in more than 200 enforcement and outreach efforts involving HIV/AIDS, including public education campaigns, HIV-related civil rights complaint investigations, HIV-related health information privacy investigations and 12 joint civil rights/health information privacy compliance reviews, which were the subject of OCR’s report, Protecting the Civil Rights and Health Information Privacy of People Living with HIV/AIDS. The report is available here.

Of particular note, OCR has launched an Information is Powerful Medicine public education campaign, which encourages those living with HIV to be proactive in their health care. The campaign explains individuals’ health information privacy rights, including how individuals can monitor and access a copy of their medical records.

OCR’s enforcement in this and other HIV discrimination actions is part a broader nondiscrimination and civil rights enforcement initiative under Section 1551 and other federal laws which has resulted in a growing list of multi-million dollar settlements from health care providers, state and local government agencies and others receiving federal funding from programs managed by the Department of Health & Human Services. See here. Health care providers should verify their policies and operations comply with these civil rights nondiscrimination rules.

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

Leave a Comment » | ADA, Corporate Compliance, Cultural diversity, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, HIPAA, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, OCR, Pharmacy, Rehabilitation Act, Skilled Nursing Facility, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

HHS Issues Hurricane Irma Relief For Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands & Florida

September 8, 2017

In preparation for anticipated disruptions and damage from Hurricane Irma, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, M.D. declared a Public Health Emergency in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 and in Florida on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

By declaring the disaster and before the Hurricane makes landfall, HHS seeks to maximize the flexibility of healthcare providers to respond to the anticipated deluge of health care needs anticipated to occur around the Hurricane by using its authority under Social Security Act 1135 to waive and modify certain health care rules under Medicare, Medicaid and certain other federal programs. See here.

Beyond modification of these requirements, the declaration also triggers limited relief for covered health care providers from certain otherwise applicable requirements of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rules. See here for OCR’s latest guidance on the limited waiver of HIPAA Sanctions and penalties during a declared emergency.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications. Ms. Stamer works with health industry and related businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management, disaster and other crisis preparedness and response, and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her experienced includes career long involvement in advising and defending health industry and other organizations about disaster and other crisis preparation, response and mitigation arising from natural and man-made disasters, government enforcement, financial distress, workplace emergencies and accidents, data breach and other cybersecurity and other events. For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (214) 452-8297.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

Leave a Comment » | 1335 Waiver, Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Conditions of Participation, Disaster Relief, DME, Doctor, EMTALA, Federal Health Center, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Plan, healthcare, HIPAA, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Fee Schedule, OCR, Physician, Physician Licensing, public health, Public Policy, Reimbursement | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

6/16 Feedback Deadline For CDC Legal Epidemiology Competency Model; Other Legal Epidemiology Resources

June 1, 2017

Public health and other health care, employer and other business, education, community services, law enforcement and other government and community leaders and their legal and other advisers should check out and provide feedback to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the new draft Legal Epidemiology Competency Model (LECM) and other CDC resources designed to help the U.S., its organizations, communities and people prepare for and respond to epidemic and other public health and disease concerns.

National and international concern about the outbreak and management of deadly Ebola and other pandemics, bioterrorism and other terrorism attacks, national disasters and other public health risks have sensitized Americans and their business, community and governmental leaders to the potential community wide risks of these and other public health events, the legal and operational challenges that often arise in the course of responding to these risks, and the helpfulness if not necessity of community-wide involvement, preparation and collaboration to the effectiveness of efforts to prepare for and respond to these occurrences.

In recognition of these realities, the CDC is stepping up its efforts both to understand better, and to to educate and support relevant components of U.S. communities, their advisers, researchers and leaders about these public health challenges including the relationships and influences between the occurrence and management of these public health events and the law (“legal epidemiology.”)

Widespread public and private concern and coverage of terrorism attacks and pandemic outbreaks have reinvigorated CDC’s emphasis and efforts to outreach to health care providers, public health, school, and other community organizations, employers and other business leaders and others. In response to government and public Ebola and other epidemic and pandemic out breaks, for instance, the CDC in recent years has stepped up both its public communications about epidemic and other public health risks and its emphasis upon understanding and developing legal epidemiology practices and resources. For instance, the death of an Ebola patient in Dallas and subsequent diagnosis of various other victims of Ebola and other pandemic diseases within or potentially traveling to the United States, reinvigorated the emphasis and efforts of the CDC and other federal and state agencies and other public and private organizations and groups to help law and policy makers prepare for and respond to pandemic and other public health concerns.

While much of the increased or updated CDC knowledge and guidance focuses on improving understanding and communications targeting a specific public health risk or situation, such as the updated State Ebola Protocols Table specifically to support preparedness for and responsiveness Ebola-related situations, the CDC also now recognizes the need to understand and address more generally the emerging area of legal epidemiology.

As part of its efforts to promote better understanding and resources to address legal epidemiology challenges, CDC recently released and now is inviting input on a new draft LECM developed by the CDC in collaboration with a “multidisciplinary expert review workgroup” as a resource to provide helpful information and support to lawyers, researchers, and others whose work explores how laws can play a role in the cause, distribution, and prevention of disease and injury or otherwise engaged in projects focused at the intersection of law and epidemiology, referred to as “legal epidemiology.”

Recognizing the growing importance of legal epidemiology, the CDC now is inviting input from the broad public health community, as well as from those engaged directly in legal epidemiology work to help CDC further refine the LECM. While the CDC is inviting interested persons to review the draft LECM and share thoughts on any aspect of the model, CDC has indicated that CDC particularly is interested in reactions and suggestions related to any of the following questions:

Does the LECM reflect the requirements for truly effective performance of legal epidemiology?
Are there concepts that should be added or removed?
Are the behavioral statements in the draft LECM representative of how legal epidemiologists demonstrate competency in their work?
Does the draft LECM accurately reflect the knowledge, skills, and abilities that legal epidemiologists must demonstrate in your organization?
How might you use the LECM in your work?

Parties wishing to provide feedback should submit their feedback by Friday, June 16, 2017 in accordance with the instructions shared here or by email to Janelle Nichols at jnichols@phf.org.

Coincident with CDC’s release of the draft LECM for public comment, the CDC PHLP is working to expand awareness and understanding of the emerging field of legal epidemiology.

As part of these efforts, CDC recently released an updated version of its Criminal and Epidemiological Investigations Handbook. Offered in English, Spanish and French, this latest version provides an overview of criminal and epidemiological investigation procedures involving interactions between law enforcement and public health. It is designed to help teach public health and law enforcement how to work together to identify the biological agent, prevent the spread of the disease, avoid public panic, and apprehend those responsible.

CDC also is offering in collaboration with the National Environmental Health Association, a series of webinars on legal epidemiology. The second webinar in a three-part series of free programs on legal epidemiology titled “Legal Epidemiology, Part 2: A Tool for Evaluating the Impact of Environmental Public Health Laws,” scheduled to take place on June 14, 2017, 1:00–2:30 pm (EDT) will feature speakers from PHLP, highlight variations in state law provisions related to environmental public health issues, and describe related legal epidemiology methods. It will also offer abbreviated training in the principles of legal epidemiology, give examples of its application to environmental public health law, and allow participants to ask questions. For more details about the program or participation, see here.

About The Author

Ms. Stamer works domestically and internationally with health, insurance and financial services, data and technology, services and consulting, energy, retail, hospitality and other businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of human resources and workforce, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. Her day-to-day work encompasses both labor and employment issues, as well as independent contractor, outsourcing, employee leasing, management services and other nontraditional service relationships. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with all aspects for workforce and human resources management, including, recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation and benefits, promotion, discipline, compliance, trade secret and confidentiality, noncompetition, privacy and data security, safety, daily performance and operations management, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

Well-known for her extensive work with health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, hospitality and governmental employers, her nearly 30 years’ of experience encompasses domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association; Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Gulf Coast TEGE Council Exempt Organization Coordinator; a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence; former board member and Vice President of the Managed Care Association; past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; a member and advisor to the National Physicians’ Council for Healthcare Policy; current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee; current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section; Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section; a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group; immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council; past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee; a former member of the Board of Directors, Treasurer, Member and Continuing Education Chair of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Author of “Privacy & Pandemic: A Workshop & Materials” presented to the ASTHO and a multitude of other pandemic, occupational health and other public health law and management matters, Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposia chair and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health care, privacy, human resources, labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, occupational safety and health, and other regulatory and operational risk management for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations and for clients on the Advisory Boards of InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, and many other publications.

Want to know more? See here for details about the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, e-mail her here or telephone Ms. Stamer at (469) 767-8872.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources at www.SolutionsLawPress.com.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please provide your current contact information and preferences including your preferred e-mail by creating or updating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The publisher and the author expressly disclaim all liability for this content and any responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Leave a Comment » | CDC, Disease Management, Health Care, Health Care Quality, legal epidemiology, Medical Privacy, Pandemic, Privacy, public health, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health, health law, legal epidemiology, occupational health, Pandemic, public health | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Stamer Speaks, Moderates On Medical Cyber Security At LA Medical Privacy Summit

May 12, 2017

Solutions Law Press, Inc. editor and attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer will speak and moderate two key panel programs on health care privacy and data security scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Form hosted on May 19, 2017 by the Information Security Systems Association of Los Angeles County (ISSA-LA) as a component of its 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit. The presentations of Ms. Stamer and others at the conference are particularly timely coming on the heels of the May 12 Cyber alerts to U.S. health industry and other businesses about the urgent need to defend against the spread of an epidemic international malware threat targeting U.S. healthcare and other businesses. See Health Care, Health Plan & Other Health IT Systems Warned of E-Mail Cyber Attack; Urgent WannaCry Ransomware Cyber Warning Issued; Alert: Guard Health E-Mail, Other IT Against WannaCry Malware Attack.

The Medical Privacy & Security Summit is part of the 9th Annual ISSA-LA Information Security Summit scheduled for May 18-19, 2017 at the Universal City Hilton in Los Angeles. Recognized as a premier information security education and networking event, the Summit is expected to bring together 1000 or more health industry and other IT and InfoSec executives, leaders, analysts, and practitioners to learn from the experts, exchange ideas with their peers, and enjoy conversations with the community.

The Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum offered for the 5^th year as a component of the annual Summit on May 19 specifically focuses on leading challenges, issues and opportunities confronted by health industry privacy and security professionals and their organizations. Ms. Stamer has served on the steering committee, moderator and popular faculty member for the 2017 Forum for the 5^th consecutive year. During the 2017 Forum, she will moderate and speak on two panels:

“Finding & Negotiating The Mine Fields: CISO, CIO & Privacy Officer’s Playbook for Promoting Compliance & Security Without Getting Fired,” a luncheon interactive panel discussion with the audience exploring the challenging mission CISOs, CIOs and Privacy Officers face to ensure their healthcare, financial and other critical information, data and systems continue to support the patient care and operating functions of their organizations, while at the same time defending these systems, operations and their sensitive, but mission critical data against malicious or innocent misappropriation, use, access or destruction; and
The closing panel on “What Initiatives Are on the Horizon in Healthcare, and How Can We Secure Them?”, which will explore likely future emerging privacy and security threats and technologies, regulatory challenges and enforcement, and other trends that Privacy and Security professionals are likely to face and tips and strategies for preparing to leverage these likely new opportunities and manage new challenges.

Register or get the full schedule of programs and other events scheduled at the Healthcare Privacy & Security Forum specifically along with the overall Information Security Summit here.

About Ms. Stamer

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent (Top 1%) rated practicing attorney and management consultant, health industry public policy advocate, widely published author and lecturer, recognized for her nearly 30 years’ of work on health industry and other privacy and data security and other health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry legal and operational as a LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® “LEGAL LEADER™ and “Top Rated Lawyer,” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; a D Magazine “Best Lawyers In Dallas” in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law,” a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation, the Texas Bar Foundation and the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel.

Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her extensive work and leadership throughout her career on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, IRC and other tax, Social Security, GLB, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks, insurers and other financial institutions, and others on trade secret confidentiality, privacy, data security and other risk management and compliance including design, establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, drafting and negotiation of business associate, chain of custody, confidentiality, and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others; reporting known or suspected violations; commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance and other regulatory affairs, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns.

Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, employers, payroll, staffing, recruitment, insurance and financial services, health and other technology and other vendors, and others.

Author of a multitude of highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use published by BNA, the ABA and other premier legal industry publishers In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also speaks extensively and conducts training on health care and other privacy and data security and many other matters Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

Beyond these involvements, Ms. Stamer also is active in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. Through these and other involvements, she helps develop and build solutions, build consensus, garner funding and other resources, manage compliance and other operations, and take other actions to identify promote tangible improvements in health care and other policy and operational areas.

For additional information about Ms. Stamer, see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly by e-mail here or by telephone at (469) 767-8872. ©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited, non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc. All other rights reserved.

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, Cyber crime, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FDA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mental Heatlh, OCR, OIG, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, quality reporting, Rural Health Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, substance abuse treatment, Technology, Telemarketing, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, HIPAA, Malware, Medical Privacy, Medical Security, Technology, WannaCry | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Health Care, Health Plan & Other Health IT Systems Warned of E-Mail Cyber Attack

May 12, 2017

Health care providers, health plans, health insurers, healthcare clearinghouses, their business associates and others involved in health information technology or related activities should raise their cyber security defenses and use cyber security best practices to defend their information systems and data against ongoing cyber security attacks targeting health industry information systems in the United States and abroad in a cyber security alert issued by Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) Laura Wolf Critical Infrastructure Protection Lead.

The cyber security alert states that there is evidence that cyber attacks affecting hospitals and healthcare information systems in the UK and other international locations” now are “occurring inside the United States.”

HHS states it is “working with our partners across government and in the private sector to develop a better understanding of the threat and to provide additional information on measures to protect your systems.

Meanwhile,HHS advises U.S. health industry organizations and information systems to exercise cyber security best practices – particularly with respect to email including HHS Ransomware Guidance available here and other information on ransomware in the following HHS Cyber Newsletters:

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hippa-cyber-awareness-monthly-issue1.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hipaa-cyber-awareness-monthly-issue3.pdf

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/february-2017-ocr-cyber-awareness-newsletter.pdf

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Health Care,” “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this update is widely known for her 29 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.
Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other data security, privacy and breach laws.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

Her work includes both regulatory and public policy advocacy and thought leadership, as well as advising and representing a broad range of health industry and other clients about policy design, drafting, administration, business associate and other contracting, risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation, investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected violations or other incidents and responding to and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others.
In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.
A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health plans, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other “nonpar,” insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

A popular lecturer and widely published author on health industry concerns, Ms. Stamer continuously advises health industry clients about compliance and internal controls, workforce and medical staff performance, quality, governance, reimbursement, privacy and data security, and other risk management and operational matters. Ms. Stamer also publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry regulatory, staffing and human resources, compensation and benefits, technology, public policy, reimbursement and other operations and risk management concerns.
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

Ms. Stamer also is a highly popular lecturer, symposium and chair, faculty member and author, who publishes and speaks extensively on health and managed care industry, human resources, employment and other privacy, data security and other technology, regulatory and operational risk management. Examples of her many highly regarded publications on these matters include “Protecting & Using Patient Data In Disease Management: Opportunities, Liabilities And Prescriptions,” “Privacy Invasions of Medical Care-An Emerging Perspective,” “Cybercrime and Identity Theft: Health Information Security: Beyond HIPAA,” as well as thousands of other publications, programs and workshops these and other concerns for the American Bar Association, ALI-ABA, American Health Lawyers, Society of Human Resources Professionals, the Southwest Benefits Association, the Society of Employee Benefits Administrators, the American Law Institute, Lexis-Nexis, Atlantic Information Services, The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), InsuranceThoughtLeaders.com, Benefits Magazine, Employee Benefit News, Texas CEO Magazine, HealthLeaders, the HCCA, ISSA, HIMSS, Modern Healthcare, Managed Healthcare, Institute of Internal Auditors, Society of CPAs, Business Insurance, Employee Benefits News, World At Work, Benefits Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other symposia and publications. She also has served as an Editorial Advisory Board Member for human resources, employee benefit and other management focused publications of BNA, HR.com, Employee Benefit News, Insurance Thought Leadership and many other prominent publications and speaks and conducts training for a broad range of professional organizations.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

©2017 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ All other rights reserved. For information about republication or other use, please contact Ms. Stamer here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, CDC, Controlled Substances, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, FDA, Federal Health Center, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, health care reimbursement, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Telemarketing, Uncategorized | Tagged: Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Data Security, E-mail, Health Care, HIPAA, Malware | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$2.4M HIPAA Settlement Warns Providers About Media Disclosures Of PHI

May 11, 2017

Healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (Covered Entities) can’t disclose the name or other protected health care information about a patient in press releases or other announcements without prior authorization from the patient. That’s the clear lesson Covered Entities should learn from the $2.4 million payment to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that the largest not-for-profit health system in Southeast Texas, Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) is paying to settle charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule by issuing a press release with the name and other protected health information (PHI) about a patient without the patient’s prior HIPAA-compliant authorization under a Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) announced May 10, 2017 by HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

The Resolution Agreement resolves OCR charges the operator of 13 hospitals, eight Cancer Centers, three Heart & Vascular Institutes, and 27 sports medicine and rehabilitation centers violated the Privacy Rule that resulted from an OCR compliance review of MHHS triggered by multiple media reports suggesting that MHHS improperly disclosed the name and other details about a patient arrested and charged with presenting an allegedly fraudulent identification card to office staff at an MHHS’s clinic after MHHS clinic staff alerted law enforcement of suspicions the patient was presenting false identification to the clinic. According to OCR, after law enforcement investigated and arrested the patient, MHHS published a press release concerning the incident in which MHHS senior management approved the impermissible disclosure of the patient’s PHI by adding the patient’s name in the title of the press release without securing prior authorization of the patient.

While OCR concluded the report to law enforcement allowable under the Privacy Rule, OCR found MHHS violated the Privacy Rule by issuing the press release disclosing the patient’s name and other PHI without authorization from the patient and also by failing to timely document the sanctioning of its workforce members for impermissibly disclosing the patient’s information.

To resolve and avoid the potential Civil Monetary Penalties that HIPAA could authorize OCR to impose for the alleged Privacy Rule violation, MHHS agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay OCR a $2.4 million monetary settlement and implement a corrective action plan that obligates MHHS to update and train its workforce on its policies and procedures on safeguarding PHI from impermissible uses and disclosures including specific instructions and procedures to:

Address (a) Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required, including to the media, to public officials, and on the internet; (b) Disclosures for law enforcement purposes; and (c) Uses and disclosures for health oversight activities;
Identify MHHS personnel or representatives whom workforce members, agents, or business associates may contact in the event of any inquiry or concern regarding compliance with HIPAA in relation to these activities;
Internal reporting procedures requiring all workforce members to report to the designated person or office at the earliest possible time any potential violations of the Privacy, Security or Breach Notification Rules or of MHHS’ privacy and security policies and procedures and MHHS promptly to investigate and address all received reports in a timely manner; and
Application and documentation of appropriate sanctions (which may include retraining or other instructive corrective action, depending on the circumstances) against members of MHHS’ workforce, including senior level management, who fail to comply with the Privacy, Security or Breach Notification Rules or MHHS’ privacy and security policies and procedures, including a description of the sanctions; a timeframe in which MHHS will apply and document sanctions for violations of the HIPAA Rules or of MHHS’ privacy, security or breach policies or procedures; the manner in which MHHS will document the sanctions; and where MHHS will store or retain such documentation (e.g., personnel file).

The corrective action plan in the Resolution Agreement also requires all MHHS facilities to attest to their understanding of permissible uses and disclosures of PHI, including disclosures to the media and others.

Covered entities should keep in mind the MHHS Resolution Agreement is the latest in a series of OCR enforcement actions and resolution agreements highlighting the need for Covered Entities to adopt and use appropriate policies and procedures to prevent wrongful disclosures of PHI to the media or public. For instance, in June, 2013, OCR required Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) to pay a $275,000 settlement payment and implement a comprehensive corrective action plan to resolve OCR charges stemming from SRMC’s disclosure of PHI about a patient to members of the media and its workforce in an effort to respond to accusations the patient made that SRMC engaged in fraud and other misconduct. See HIPAA Sanctions Triggered From Covered Entity Statements To Media, Workforce. In contrast, the $2.2 million resolution agreement that OCR required New York Presbyterian Hospital for improperly allowing a film crew to film hospital patients in violation of HIPAA was almost 10 times greater than the SRMC penalty and was accompanied by OCR’s publication OCR of specific additional guidance warning Covered Entities against improper disclosures to the media. See $2 Million+ HIPAA Settlement, FAQ Warn Providers Protect PHI From Media, Other Recording Or Use.

Following on the heels of this previous guidance and prior enforcement actions warning Covered Entities against wrongful disclosure to the media, the MHHS Resolution Agreement sends a strong message to Covered Entities that they should expect little sympathy if their organizations improperly share PHI with the media. OCR’s announcement of the MHHS Resolution Agreement, for instance quotes OCR Director Roger Severino with stating that “Senior management should have known that disclosing a patient’s name on the title of a press release was a clear HIPAA Privacy violation that would induce a swift OCR response.” The announcement goes on to quote Director Severino further as stating, “This case reminds us that organizations can readily cooperate with law enforcement without violating HIPAA, but that they must nevertheless continue to protect patient privacy when making statements to the public and elsewhere.”

Risk Assess & Control Media Relations & Other Communications For PHI Disclosures Enterprisewide

Covered entities should heed the warning by conducting a risk assessment of their organization’s susceptibility to potential improper disclosures to media or others and reviewing and implementing necessary written policies, procedures and training to prevent the improper disclosure of patient PHI to media or others unless the Covered Entity either secures prior HIPAA-compliant authorization from the patient or can prove the disclosure falls squarely under an exception to the Privacy Rule’s prohibition against disclosure of PHI without authorization except as allowed by the Privacy Rule.

Taking these and other needed steps to evaluate, and strengthen and enforce as needed, risk assessments, policies, procedures, and training to prevent wrongful use, access or disclosure of PHI to the media or others is particularly critical in light of the ongoing tightening of expectations, and rising enforcement and sanctions for HIPAA violations since Congress amended HIPAA in 2009. See OCR Audit Program Kickoff Further Heats HIPAA Privacy Risks; HIPAA Heats Up: HITECH Act Changes Take Effect & OCR Begins Posting Names, Other Details Of Unsecured PHI Breach Reports On Website.

Based on experiences reported in the MHHS and other similar resolution agreements, Covered Entities also generally will want to ensure that their policies, procedures and training extend to all potential sources of communications that could involve patient information and make clear that the Privacy Rule restrictions must be followed even if the circumstances involve allegations of misconduct, special performance by healthcare providers or others that it would benefit the organization or certain individuals to have known to the public, or other circumstances likely to be of interest to the media or other parties.
As part of this process, covered entities should ensure they look outside the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that appropriate training and clarification is provided to address media, practice transition, workforce communication and other policies and practices that may be covered by pre-existing or other policies of other departments or operational elements not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer such as media relations. Media relations, physician and patients affairs, outside legal counsel, media relations, marketing and other internal and external departments and consultants dealing with the media, the public or other inquiries or disputes should carefully include and coordinate with the privacy officer both to ensure appropriate policies and procedures are followed and proper documentation created and retained to show authorization, account, or meet other requirements.

In conducting this analysis and risk assessment, it will be important that Covered Entities include, but also look beyond the four corners of their Privacy Policies to ensure that their review and risk assessment identifies and assesses and addresses compliance risks on an entity wide basis. This entity-wide assessment should include both communications and requests for information normally addressed to the Privacy Officer as well as requests and communications that could arise in the course of media or other public relations, practice transition, workforce communication and other operations not typically under the direct oversight and management of the Privacy Officer.

For this reason, Covered Entities also generally will not only to adopt and implement specific policies, processes and training in these other departments to prohibit and prevent inappropriate disclosures of PHI in the course of those departments operations. It also may be advisable to pre-established processes for reviewing media or other communications for potential PHI content and require prior review of any proposed public relations and other internal or external communications containing patient PHI or other information by the privacy officer, legal counsel or another suitably qualified party.

About The Author

Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health plans, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other “nonpar,” insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here.
If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Accreditation, Ambulatory care, Clinical pathway, Consumer Driven Health Care, data breach, data security, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, ERISA, FACTA, Federal Health Center, Fiduciary Responsibility, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Fraud, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Hospital, Indian Health, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Malpractice, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare, OCR, Physician, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, Wellness | Tagged: HIPAA, medical orivacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CardioNet $2.5M HIPAA Resolution Agreement Schools HIPAA Entities To Clean Up Their Acts

April 26, 2017

Remote cardiac monitoring provider CardioNet is paying $2.5 million and implementing a corrective action plan to settle potential charges of noncompliance with the Health Insurance and Portability Act (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) based on the impermissible disclosure of unsecured electronic protected health information (ePHI).

The first OCR HIPAA settlement involving a wireless health services provider, the CardioNet Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan (Resolution Agreement) announced by OCR on April 24, 2017 clearly illustrates for all covered entities and their business associates of the substantial liability risks of failing to finalize and actually adopt, implement, administer and maintain the necessary HIPAA Privacy and Security policies and procedures required by HIPAA as well as some of the steps OCR expects to fulfill these requirements.

CardioNet Charges & Settlement

As has become increasingly common in recent years, the CardioNet settlement arose from concerns initially brought to OCR’s attention in connection with a HIPAA breach notification report. On January 10, 2012, OCR received notification from the provider of remote mobile monitoring of and rapid response to patients at risk for cardiac arrhythmias that a workforce member’s laptop with the ePHI of 1,391 individuals was stolen from a parked vehicle outside of the employee’s home. CardioNet subsequently notified OCR of a second breach of ePHI 2,219 individuals, respectively.

Likewise, the HIPAA breaches uncovered by OCR in the course of investigating these CardioNet breaches occur in the operations of many other covered entities. According to the OCR’s investigation in response to these breach reports revealed a series of continuing compliance concerns, including:

CardioNet failed to conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis to assess the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of ePHI and failed to plan for and implement security measures sufficient to reduce those risks and vulnerabilities;
CardioNet’s policies and procedures implementing the standards of the HIPAA Security Rule were in draft form and had not been implemented;
CardioNet was unable to produce any final policies or procedures regarding the implementation of safeguards for ePHI, including those for mobile devices;
CardioNet failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain electronic protected health information into and out of its facilities, the encryption of such media, and the movement of these items within its facilities until March 2015; and
CardioNet failed to safeguard against the impermissible disclosure of protected health information by its employees, thereby permitting access to that information by an unauthorized individual, and failed to take sufficient steps to immediately correct the disclosure.

To resolve these OCR charges, CardioNet agrees in the Resolution Agreement to pay $2.5 million to OCR and implement a corrective action plan. Among other things, the corrective action plan requires CardioNet to complete the following actions to the satisfaction of OCR:

Prepare a current, comprehensive and thorough Risk Analysis of security risks and vulnerabilities that incorporates its current facility or facilities and the electronic equipment, data systems, and applications controlled, currently administered or owned by CardioNet, that contain, store, transmit, or receive electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) and update that Risk Analysis annually or more frequently, if appropriate in response to environmental or operational changes affecting the security of ePHI.
Assess whether its existing security measures are sufficient to protect its ePHI and revise its Risk Management Plan, Policies and Procedures, and training materials and implement additional security measures, as needed.
Develop and implement an organization-wide Risk Management Plan to address and mitigate any security risks and vulnerabilities found in the Risk Analysis as required by the Risk Management Plan.
Review and, to the extent necessary, revise, its current Security Rule Policies and Procedures (“Policies and Procedures”) based on the findings of the Risk Analysis and the implementation of the Risk Management Plan to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule.
Provide certification to OCR that all laptops, flashdrives, SD cards, and other portable media devices are encrypted, together with a description of the encryption methods used (“Certification”).
Review, revise its HIPAA Security training to include a focus on security, encryption, and handling of mobile devices and out-of-office transmissions and other policies and practices require to address the issues identified in the Risk Assessment and otherwise comply with the Risk Management Plan and HIPAA train its workforce on these policies and practices.
Investigate all potential violations of its HIPAA policies and procedures and notify OCR in writing within 30 days of any violation.
Submit annual reports to OCR, which must be signed by an owner or officer of CardioNet attesting that he or she has reviewed the annual report, has made a reasonable inquiry regarding its content and believes that, upon such inquiry, the information is accurate and truthful.
Maintain for inspection and copying, and provide to OCR, upon request, all documents and records relating to compliance with the corrective action plan for six years.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

The CardioNet Resolution Agreement contains numerous lessons for other Covered entities and their business associates, including but not limited to the following.

Like many previous resolution agreements announced by OCR, the Resolution Agreement reiterates the responsibility of covered entities and business associates to properly secure their ePHI and that as part of this process, OCR expects all laptop computers and other mobile devices containing or with access to ePHI be properly encrypted and secured.
It also reminds covered entities and their business associates to be prepared for, and expect an audit from OCR when OCR receives a report that their organization experienced a large breach of unsecured ePHI.
The Resolution Agreement’s highlighting of the draft status of CardioNet’s privacy and security policies also reflects OCR expects covered entities to actually final policies, procedures and training in place for maintaining compliance with HIPAA.
The discussion and requirements in the Corrective Action Plan relating to requirements to conduct comprehensive risk assessments at least annually and in response to other events, and to update policies and procedures in response to findings of these risk assessments also drives home the importance of conducting timely, documented risk analyses of the security of their ePHI, taking prompt action to address known risks and periodically updating the risk assessment and the associated privacy and security policies and procedures in response to the findings of the risk assessment and other changing events.
The requirement in the Resolution Agreement of leadership attestation and certification on the required annual report reflects OCR’s expectation that leadership within covered entities and business associates will make HIPAA compliance a priority and will take appropriate action to oversee compliance.
Finally, the $2.5 million settlement payment required by the Resolution Agreement and its implementation against CardiNet makes clear that OCR remains serious about HIPAA enforcement.

Of course, covered entities and business associates need to keep in mind that that actions and inactions that create HIPAA liability risks also carry many other potential legal and business risks. For instance, since PHI records and data involved in such breaches usually incorporates Social Security Numbers, credit card or other debt or payment records or other personal consumer information, and other legally sensitive data, covered entities and business associates generally also may face investigation, notification and other responsibilities and liabilities under confidentiality, privacy or data security rules of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, state identity theft, data security, medical confidentiality, privacy and ethics, insurance, consumer privacy, common law or other state privacy claims and a host of other federal or state laws. Depending on the nature of the covered entity or its business associates, the breach or other privacy event also may trigger fiduciary liability exposures for health plan fiduciaries in the case of a health plan, professional ethics or licensing investigations or actions against health care providers, insurance companies, administrative service providers or brokers, shareholder or other investor actions, employment or vendor termination or disputes and a host of other indirect legal consequences.

Beyond, and regardless of the technical legal defensibility of its actions under these and other laws, however, the most material and often most intractable consequences of a HIPAA or other data or other privacy breach report or public accusation, investigation, admission also typically are the most inevitable:

The intangible, but critical loss of trust and reputation covered entities and business associates inevitably incur among their patients, participants, business partners, investors and the community; and
The substantial financial expenses and administrative and operational disruptions of investigating, defending the actions of the organization and implementation of post-event corrective actions following a data or other privacy breach, audit, investigation, or charge.

In light of these risks, covered entities business associates and their management should use the experiences of CardioNet and other covered entities or business associates caught violating HIPAA or other privacy and security standards to reduce their HIPAA and other privacy and data security exposures. Management of covered entities and their business associates should take steps to ensure that their organizations policies, practices and procedures currently are up-to-date, appropriately administered and monitored, and properly documented. Management should ensure that their organizations carefully evaluate and strengthen as necessary their current HIPAA risk assessments, policies, practices, record keeping and retention and training in light of these and other reports as they are announced in a well-documented manner. The focus of these activities should be both to maintain compliance and position their organizations efficiently and effectively to respond to and defend their actions against a data breach, investigation, audit or accusation of a HIPAA or other privacy or security rule violation with a minimum of liability, cost and reputational and operational damages.

As the conduct of these activities generally will involve the collection and analysis of legally sensitive matters, most covered entities and business associates will want to involve legal counsel experienced with these matters and utilize appropriate procedures to be able to use and assert attorney-client privilege and other evidentiary privileges to mitigate risks associated with these processes. To help plan for and mitigate foreseeable expenses of investigating, responding to or mitigating a known, suspected or asserted breach or other privacy event, most covered entities and business associates also will want to consider the advisability of tightening privacy and data security standards, notification, cooperation and indemnification protections in contracts between covered entities and business associates, acquiring or expanding data breach or other liability coverage, or other options for mitigating the financial costs of responding to a breach notification, investigation or enforcement action.

About The Author

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to manage and defend compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing and other operations and risk management concerns. A core focus of this work includes work to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; dealings with JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; investigation and defense of private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigations and enforcement; insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development; managed care, physician and other staffing, business associate and other contracting; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.

In the course of this work, Ms. Stamer has accumulated extensive experience helping health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training, board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

Author of leading works on HIPAA and other privacy and data security works and the scribe leading the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Annual Agency Meeting with OCR, her experience includes extensive compliance, risk management and data breach and other crisis event investigation, response and remediation under HIPAA and other data security, privacy and breach laws. Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues including meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and many other concerns.

In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in Pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other “nonpar,” insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Ambulatory care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, Durable Medical Equipment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employer, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, OCR, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Privacy, Psychiatric, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: audit, Breach Notification, Data Breach, Data Security, healthcare, HIPAA, medical, OCR, OCR< Privacy, Privacy, Privacy Rule, Security, Security Officer, Security Rule, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Medical Clinic HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need For Current Business Associate Agreements

April 24, 2017

Health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses and business associates must get and keep their business associate (BA) agreements (BAAs) in place, up- to-date, and readily available for inspection in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164 (Privacy Rule). That’s the clear message physician practices and other health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and their business associates should learn about Privacy Rule compliance from an April 17, 2017 HIPAA Resolution Agreement just announced by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) with the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH).

While the Resolution Agreement relates to breaches of the BAA requirements of a small pediatric practice, the Center for Children’s Digestive Health (CCDH), all health plans, health care providers and other covered entities and business associates should focus on the adequacy of their BAAs and their BAA recordkeeping. HIPAA compliance surveys reflect deficiencies with the BAA rules are common throughout the industry. These findings and the involvement of BAs in data breaches or other OCR enforcement activities suggest a high probability that many other covered entities and business associates may be sitting ducks for similar sanctions. See e.g., HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017).

The HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Requirements

OCR’s announcement of the CCDH Resolution Agreement is the latest in a growing series of HIPAA enforcement actions showing the growing risk covered entities and their business associates face for failing to take appropriate steps to comply with the BAA and other Privacy Rule requirements of HIPAA.

As compliance audits and surveys of covered entities and business associates suggest a high level of noncompliance with the business associate agreement requirements among covered entities and business associates, While the ever-growing list of Resolution Agreements and Civil Monetary Penalties announced by OCR cover a variety of categories of HIPAA violations, the CCDH Resolution Agreement highlights the importance of covered entities and their business associates ensuring that before the BA creates, accesses, receives, discloses, retains or destroys any PHI for the covered entity, a BAA meeting the Privacy Rule requirements is signed and retained for at least the six year period the Privacy Rule requires in a manner easily producible when and if OCR or another agency asks for a copy as part of an investigation or other compliance audit. See Privacy Rule §§ 164.502(e), 164.504(e), 164.532(d) and (e).

The Privacy Rule requires that covered entities and business associates enter into a written and signed business associate agreement that contains the elements specified in Privacy Rule § 164.504(e) before the business associate creates, uses, accesses or discloses PHI of the covered entity. Meanwhile, the Privacy Rule recordkeeping requirements require that covered entities and BAs maintain copies of these BAAs for a minimum of six years.

Violations of the Privacy Rule can carry stiff civil or even criminal penalties Pursuant to amendments to HIPAA enacted as part of the HITECH Act, civil penalties typically do not apply to violations punished under the criminal penalty rules of HIPAA set forth in Social Security Act , 42 U.S.C § 1320d-6 (Section 1177).

Under Section 1177, the criminal enforcement provisions of HIPAA authorize the Justice Department to prosecute a person who knowingly in violation of the Privacy Rule (1) uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses individually identifiable health information to another person, punishable by the following criminal sanctions and penalties:

A fine of up to $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
If the offense is committed under false pretenses, a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both; and
If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, a fine of up to $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

In contrast, as amended by the HITECH Act, the civil enforcement provisions of HIPAA empower OCR to impose Civil Monetary Penalties on both covered entities and BAs for violations of any of the requirements of the Privacy or Security Rules. The penalty ranges for civil violations depends upon the circumstances associated with the violations and are subject to upward adjustment for inflation. As most recently adjusted here effective September 6, 2016, the following currently are the progressively increasing Civil Monetary Penalty tiers:

A minimum penalty of $100 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations which the CE or BA “did not know, and by exercising reasonable diligence would not have known” about using “the business care and prudence expected from a person seeking to satisfy a legal requirement under similar circumstances;”
A minimum penalty of $1,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations for “reasonable cause” which do not rise to the level of “willful neglect” where “reasonable cause” means the “circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the violated Privacy Rule requirement;”
A minimum penalty of $10,000 and a maximum penalty of $50,000 per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect,” defined as “the conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply” with the requirement or prohibition; and
A minimum penalty of $50,000 and a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation, for violations attributed to “willful neglect” not remedied within 30 days of the date that the covered entity or BA knew or should have known of the violation.

For continuing violations such as failing to implement a required BAA, OCR can treat each day of noncompliance as a separate violation. However, sanctions under each of these tiers generally are subject to a maximum penalty of $1,500,000 for violations of identical requirements or prohibitions during a calendar year. For violations such as the failure to implement and maintain a required BAA where more than one covered entity bears responsibility for the violation, OCR an impose Civil Monetary Penalties against each culpable party. OCR considers a variety of mitigating and aggravating facts and circumstances when arriving at the amount of the penalty within each of these applicable tiers to impose.

While criminal enforcement of HIPAA remains relatively rare, a review of the OCR enforcement record in recent years makes clear that civil enforcement of HIPAA and the sanctions imposed is growing. See e.g., $400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments; $5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit. For more examples, also see here.

CCDH Sanctions For Violation Of HIPAA Business Associate Agreement Rules

The CCDH Resolution Agreement arises from violations of this requirement that OCR says it discovered as a result of a compliance review conducted in response to an OCR investigation of a CCDH business associate, FileFax, Inc. According to OCR, OCR found from the compliance review of CCDH triggered by OCR’s investigation of FileFax that while CCDH began disclosing PHI to Filefax in 2003 and that Filefax stored records containing protected health information (PHI) for CCDH, neither CCDH nor Filefax could produce a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) covering their relationship for any period before October 12, 2015.

Based on the resulting investigation, OCR concluded:

CCDH failed to obtain a BAA providing written assurances from Filefax that it would appropriately safeguard the PHI in Filefax’s possession or control satisfactory assurances as required by Privacy Rule §164.502(e); and
Because CCDH failed to secure the required BAA, it violated the Privacy Rule by impermissibly disclosing the PHI of at least 10,728 individuals to Filefax when CCDH transferred the PHI to Filefax without obtaining the requisite BAA from Filefax (Covered Conduct).

In the Resolution Agreement, CCDH agrees to pay HHS $31,000.00 (Resolution Amount) and enter into and comply with a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in return for OCR’s release of CCDH from liability for “any actions it may have against CCDH under the HIPAA Rules” for the Covered Conduct. The Resolution Agreement only settles the civil monetary penalty and other OCR enforcement liabilities of CCDH with respect to the Covered Conduct. Its provisions expressly state the Resolution Agreement does not affect any exposures of CCDH to CCDH to OCR civil monetary penalties or other enforcement for any HIPAA violations other than the Covered Conduct.

Perhaps even more noteworthy given the HITECH Act’s provisions coordinating the civil and criminal sanctions of HIPAA, while the Resolution Agreement provides no clear indication that the Justice Department might be considering criminally prosecuting CCDH or any other party in relation to the Covered Conduct, the Resolution Agreement also expressly states that its provisions do not affect CCDH’s potential exposure, if any, to criminal prosecution by the Justice Department for a criminal violation of the Privacy Rules under Section 1177 of the Social Security Act.

Implications For Covered Entities & Business Associates

Covered entities and their business associates should heed the CCDH Resolution Agreement as a strong message from OCR to ensure their organizations are complying with HIPAA’s BAA and other requirements. The Resolution Agreement makes clear that the starting point of this compliance effort must be obtaining and maintaining the requisite BAAs for each BA relationship.

To position their organizations to withstand potential investigation by OCR, covered entities and BAs should start by conducting a well-documented audit within the scope of attorney-client privilege both to verify that an appropriate, signed BAA is in place for each BA relationship as well as adequacy of processes for identifying business associate relationships, ensuring that signed BAAs are in effect before BAs access any PHI, and for investigating, reporting and resolving any breaches of the HIPAA Privacy or Security Rules that may arise in the course of operations.

Conducting this audit as soon as possible is particularly important in light of reported findings of widespread compliance concerns. See HIPAA Compliance Survey Churns Up Many Business Associate Problems (January 3, 2017). As the audit process could identify potential violations or other legally sensitive concerns, covered entities and business associates generally will want to arrange for this audit and evaluation to be conducted under the supervision of legal counsel experienced with HIPAA within or pursuant to processes structured with the assistance of legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege.

Beyond confirming all necessary BAAs are in place, covered entities and business associates also generally will want to evaluate the adequacy of BAs’ processes and procedures for maintaining compliance with the Privacy and Security Rules as well as processes and procedures for responding to audits, investigations and complaints, reporting and addressing breaches of electronic and other PHI and other possible compliance concerns under HIPAA and other related laws. In many instances, parties may n wish to revise and strengthen existing BAAs to more specifically define these policies and procedures more specifically as well as indemnification, cyber or other liability coverage requirements and other contractual provisions for allocating potential costs and liabilities arising from breaches, audits, investigations and other expenses associated with the administration of these provisions.

About The Author

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar, insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Mental Health, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Psychiatric, Technology, Telemedicine, Uncategorized | Tagged: business associate, clinic, confidentiality, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, HIPAA, HITECH Act, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Privacy Rule | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$400K HIPAA Settlement Shows Need To Conduct Timely & Appropriate Risk Assessments

April 12, 2017

Metro Community Provider Network (MCPN), a federally-qualified health center (FQHC), must pay $400,000 and implement a corrective action plan to resolve U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) charges it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Security Rule by failing to implement a security management process to safeguard electronic protected health information (ePHI). The settlement is the latest reminder to health providers, payers and their business associates to conduct timely risk assessments, implement needed security and otherwise manage HIPAA compliance.

The Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan, like most others before it, resulted from an investigation opened in response to a breach report. On January 27, 2012, MCPN filed a breach report with OCR indicating that a hacker accessed employees’ email accounts and obtained 3,200 individuals’ ePHI through a phishing incident. OCR’s investigation revealed that MCPN took necessary corrective action related to the phishing incident. However, the investigation also revealed that MCPN failed to conduct a risk analysis until mid-February 2012 – well after the hacking incident reported in the breach report.

Prior to the breach incident, MCPN had not conducted a risk analysis to assess the risks and vulnerabilities in its ePHI environment, and, consequently, had not implemented any corresponding risk management plans to address the risks and vulnerabilities identified in a risk analysis.

When MCPN finally conducted a risk analysis, OCR found that risk analysis, as well as all subsequent risk analyses, were insufficient to meet the requirements of the Security Rule.

OCR made a point in announcing the Resolution Agreement of noting it considered MCPN’s status as a FQHC when balancing the significance of the violation with MCPN’s ability to maintain sufficient financial standing to ensure the provision of ongoing patient care. MCPN provides primary medical care, dental care, pharmacies, social work, and behavioral health care services throughout the greater Denver, Colorado metropolitan area to approximately 43,000 patients per year, a large majority of whom have incomes at or below the poverty level. It is likely that OCR would have imposed a much greater settlement amount had the covered entity not been a FQHC serving the poor.

About The Author

Throughout her career, she has helped health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training ;board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

The American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with a diverse range of physicians, hospitals and healthcare systems, DME, Pharma, clinics, health care providers, managed care, insurance and other health care payers, quality assurance, credentialing, technical, research, public and private social and community organizations, and other health industry organizations and their management deal with governance; credentialing, patient relations and care; staffing, peer review, human resources and workforce performance management; outsourcing; internal controls and regulatory compliance; billing and reimbursement; physician, employment, vendor, managed care, government and other contracting; business transactions; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; licensure and accreditation; vendor selection and management; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy and other concerns.
As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; a ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Conditions of Participation, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Disease Management, DME, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Employment, ERISA, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, managed care, Meaningful Use, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mental Heatlh, OCR, Patient Empowerment, Peer Review, Pharmaceudical, Pharmacy, Physician, Physician Licensing, Prescription Drugs, Privacy, Psychiatric, public health, Rural Health Care, Technology, Telemedicine, Veterans Health, Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Health Care, Wellness | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

CMS Extends Inpatient Rehab & Long Term Care Quality Data Reporting Deadlines

February 22, 2017

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has extended the February 15th submission deadline for the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and Long-Term Care Hospital (LTCH) Quality Reporting Program (QRP) for data submitted via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) during Quarter 3, 2016. Providers now have until Monday, May 15, 2017 to submit their data. See IRF_LTCH QRP NHSN Data Submission Deadline Extension February 2017 Guidance Document.

About The Author

Throughout her adult life and nearly 30-year legal career, Ms. Stamer’s legal, management and governmental affairs work has focused on helping health industry, health benefit and other organizations and their management use the law, performance and risk management tools and process to manage people, performance, quality, compliance, operations and risk. Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer supports these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis as well as outsourced operations or special counsel on an interim, special project, or ongoing basis with strategic planning and product and services development and innovation; workforce and operations management, crisis preparedness and response as well as to prevent, stabilize and cleanup legal and operational crises large and small that arise in the course of operations. Her experience encompasses helping health industry clients manage workforce, medical staff, vendors and suppliers, medical billing, reimbursement, claims and other provider-payer relations, business partners, and their recruitment, performance, discipline, compliance, safety, compensation, benefits, and training ;board, medical staff and other governance; compliance and internal controls; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; change management; assess, deter, investigate and address staffing, quality, compliance and other performance; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other data security and breach and other health IT and data; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party reporting, audits, investigations and enforcement; government affairs and public policy; and other compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns including policy design, drafting, administration and training; business associate and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, DOJ, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, MGMA, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy and governmental and regulatory affairs experience, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for regulatory and policy work, advocacy and outreach on healthcare, education, aging, disability, savings and retirement, workforce, ethics, and other policies. Throughout her adult life and career, Ms. Stamer has provided thought leadership; policy and program design, statutory and regulatory development design and analysis; drafted legislation, proposed regulations and other guidance, position statements and briefs, comments and other critical policy documents; advised, assisted and represented health care providers, health plans and insurers, employers, professional. and trade associations, community and government leaders and others on health care, health, pension and retirement, workers’ compensation, Social Security and other benefit, insurance and financial services, tax, workforce, aging and disability, immigration, privacy and data security and a host of other international and domestic federal, state and local public policy and regulatory reforms through her involvement and participation in numerous client engagements, founder and Executive Director of the Coalition for Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: the Coalition on Patient Empowerment, adviser to the National Physicians Congress for Healthcare Policy, leadership involvement with the US-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the Texas Association of Business, the ABA JCEB, Health Law, RPTE, Tax, Labor, TIPS, International Life Sciences, and other Sections and Committees, SHRM Governmental Affairs Committee and a host of other involvements and activities.

Beyond her extensive involvement advising and representing clients on privacy and data security concerns and other health industry matters, Ms. Stamer also has served for several years as a scrivener for the ABA JCEB’s meeting with OCR, the Chair of the Southern California ISSA Health Care Privacy & Security Summit, and an editorial advisory board member, author, program chair or steering committee member, and faculties for a multitude of other programs and publications regarding privacy, data security, technology and other compliance, risk management and operational concerns in the health care, health and other insurance, employee benefits and human resources, retail, financial services and other arenas.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:

Comments Off on CMS Extends Inpatient Rehab & Long Term Care Quality Data Reporting Deadlines | Health Care Quality, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Medicaid, Medical Privacy, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee Schedule, Medicare Fee Schedule, Privacy, quality reporting, Uncategorized | Tagged: Health Care, long-term care, Medcaid, medical, Medical Reimbursement, Medicare, quality reporting, Reimbursement, Skilled Nursing | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

$5.5M Memorial HIPAA Resolution Agreement Shows Need To Audit

February 16, 2017

Memorial Healthcare Systems (MHS) has paid the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) $5.5 million to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules. The nonprofit corporation which operates six hospitals, an urgent care center, a nursing home, and a variety of ancillary health care facilities throughout the South Florida area with affiliated physician offices through an Organized Health Care Arrangement (OHCA) also agreed to implement a robust corrective action plan as part of the Resolution Agreement.

The MHS Resolution sends a strong message to all health care providers, health plans health care clearinghouses (Covered Entities) and their business associates that simply adopting HIPAA policies alone is insufficient to avoid getting nailed by OCR under HIPAA; Covered Entities and their business associates also must implement, audit and enforce those policies.

The MHS Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation initiated by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) after MHS reported to OCR that protected health information (PHI) of 115,143 individuals had been impermissibly accessed by its employees and impermissibly disclosed to affiliated physician office staff. This information consisted of the affected individuals’ names, dates of birth, and social security numbers. The login credentials of a former employee of an affiliated physician’s office had been used to access the ePHI maintained by MHS on a daily basis without detection from April 2011 to April 2012, affecting 80,000 individuals.

The investigation revealed that although MHS had workforce access policies and procedures in place, MHS failed to implement procedures with respect to reviewing, modifying and/or terminating users’ right of access, as required by the HIPAA Rules. Further, MHS failed to regularly review records of information system activity on applications that maintain electronic protected health information by workforce users and users at affiliated physician practices, despite having identified this risk on several risk analyses conducted by MHS from 2007 to 2012.

MHS’ failure to follow through to implement the controls required by its policies and audit and enforce compliance with HIPAA and its HIPAA policies was a costly mistake. Other Covered Entities should heed MHS’ painful lesson and take documented steps to ensure its HIPAA policies not only are adopted, but also implemented and monitored and audited for compliance.

Leave a Comment » | Academic medicine, Ambulatory care, ASC, Border Health, Childrens Health Insurance Program, Civil Rights, Consumer Driven Health Care, Corporate Compliance, data breach, data security, Doctor, drug treatment, E-Prescribing, Electronic Health Records, Electronic Medical Records, Employee Benefits, Employer, Federal Health Center, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Genetic Information, GINA, Health Care, Health Care Provider, Health Care Quality, Health Insurance Exchange, Health IT, Health Plan, Health Plans, healthcare, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, HITECH Act, Home Health, Hospice, Hospital, hospitals, Indian Health, Inpatient Rehabilitation, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility, Laws, Meaningful Use, Medicaid, Medical Licensure, Medical Privacy, Medical Records, Medicare Advantage | Tagged: audit, civil monetary penalty, Data Breach, healthcare, HIPAA, Hospital, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Learn From Children’s New $3.2M+ HIPAA CMP For “Knowing” Violation of HIPAA Security Rules

February 2, 2017

The just-announced $3.2 million Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) that Children’s Medical Center of Dallas (Children’s) recently paid for failing to adequately secure electronic protected health information (ePHI) and correct other HIPAA compliance deficiencies demonstrates the risks healthcare providers, health plans and insurers, healthcare clearinghouses and their business associates (“Covered Entities”) run by failing to take appropriate, well-documented actions to timely to secure ePHI on systems and mobile devices or comply with other HIPAA Privacy or Security requirements.

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) imposed the $3,217,000.00 Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) under a January 18, 2017 Final Determination based upon findings that Children’s for years knowingly violated HIPAA by failing to encrypt or otherwise properly secure ePHI on laptops and other mobile devices and failing to comply with many other HIPAA requirements. OCR originally notified Children’s of its intention to impose the CMP based on findings of widespread violations by Children’s of HIPAA in a September 30, 2016 Notice of Proposed Determination (Proposed Determination) that OCR sent to Children’s President of System Clinical Operations, David Berry. Although the Proposed Determination included instructions for requesting a hearing on the Proposed Determination, Children’s paid the CMP rather than exercising these hearing rights.

Breach Notice Investigation Reveals Children’s Failed For Years To Secure ePHI on Mobile Devices Despite Repeated Warnings

According to the Proposed Determination, OCR uncovered widespread HIPAA violations by Children’s while investigating the HIPAA compliance of the Dallas-based pediatric health and hospital system in response to two separate notices of large breaches of ePHI that Children’s filed with OCR in response to the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. Under the Breach Notification Rule, Covered Entities generally must provide notice of any breach of unsecured ePHI involving more than 500 individuals with OCR, subjects of the breached ePHI and the media within 60 days of receiving notice of the breach. In contrast, for breaches of unsecured ePHI involving fewer than 500 individuals, Covered Entities generally must notify subjects of the breached ePHI within 60 days, but can delay notification to OCR until filing a consolidated annual report of small breaches of ePHI.

The two breach notifications that triggered the OCR investigation leading to the CMP both involved losses of mobile devices containing ePHI that Children’s filed with OCR.

The first breach report, filed on January 18, 2010, notified OCR of the loss at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on November 19, 2009 of an unencrypted, non-password protected BlackBerry device containing the ePHI of approximately 3,800 individuals.

The second reported breach report filed on July 5, 2013, reported the theft of an unencrypted laptop with the ePHI of 2,462 individuals from its premises sometime between April 4 and April 9, 2013. The OCR investigation found that although Children’s implemented some physical safeguards to the operating room storage area (e.g., badge access was required, and a security camera was present at one of the entrances), it also provided access to the area to staff who were not authorized to access ePHI. Children’s janitorial staff had unrestricted access to the area where the laptop was stored but did not provide encryption to protect the ePHI on the laptop from access by such unauthorized persons. Children’s internal investigation concluded that the laptop was probably stolen by a member of the janitorial staff.

In the course of investigating these two reported breaches, OCR took note that Children’s previously reported a small breach of unsecured ePHI on an unencrypted mobile device. In a letter dated August 22, 2011, from Children’s Vice President of Compliance and Internal Audit and Chief Compliance Officer Ron Skillens to OCR Equal Opportunity Specialist Jamie Sorley, Mr. Skillens stated that a Children’s workforce member (an unidentified medical resident) lost an iPod device in December 2010. The iPod had been synched to the resident’s Children’s email account, which resulted in the ePHI of at least 22 individuals being placed on the device. The ePHI on the iPod was not encrypted. The loss of the iPod resulted in the impermissible disclosure of ePHI by the medical resident. OCR concluded the ePHI of 22 individuals was impermissibly disclosed, because the workforce member and agent of Children’s provided access to any unauthorized person who discovered the device.

OCR found that the breaches resulted from Children’s violation of the HIPAA Security Rule by failing to encrypt laptops and other mobile devices or and implement other appropriate safeguards for the protection of ePHI on mobile devices;
Failing to appropriately document its decision to not implement encryption on mobile devices and any applicable rationale behind a decision to use alternative security measures to encryption; and
Failing to implement security measures that were an equivalent alternative to the security protection available from encryption solutions.

The Proposed Determination also reports that the OCR ’s investigation revealed that Children repeatedly over several years knowingly failed to implement and administer proper encryption and other safeguards on laptops and other mobile devices containing ePHI despite actual knowledge of the unaddressed risks to unencrypted ePHI in violation of the HIPAA Security Rule dating back to at least 2007. The Proposed Determination notes, for instance, that:

A Security Gap Analysis and Assessment conducted for Children’s December 2006-February 2007 by Strategic Management Systems, Inc. (SMS) (SMS Gap Analysis) identified the absence of risk management as a major finding and recommended that Children’s implement encryption to avoid loss of PHI on stolen or lost laptops.
A separate PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) analysis of threats and vulnerabilities to certain ePHI (PwC Analysis) conducted in August, 2008 for Children’s determined that encryption was necessary and appropriate. The PwC Analysis also determined that a mechanism was not in place to protect data on a laptop, workstation, mobile device, or USB thumb drive if the device was lost or stolen and identified the loss of data at rest through unsecured mobile devices as being “high” risk. PwC identified data encryption as a “high priority” item and recommended that Children’s implement data encryption in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Furthermore, in September 2012, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued the findings from its audit of Children’s that focused on information technology controls for devices such as smartphones and USB drives. Among other things, the report, entitled “Universal Serial Bus Control Weaknesses Found at Children’s Medical Center,” found that Children’s had insufficient controls to prevent data from being written onto unauthorized and unencrypted USB devices and that “without sufficient USB controls, there was a risk that ePHI could have been written onto an unauthorized/unencrypted USB device and taken out of the hospital, resulting in a data breach.” A copy of this report was provided to Mr. Skillens.
Despite the prior breach notifications and warnings from the SMS Gap Analysis, the PwC Analysis and the OIG audit report, Children’s failed to take the necessary steps to encrypt and otherwise safeguard its ePHI on mobile devices. Children’s still had not implemented encryption on all devices as of April 9, 2013 even though appropriate commercial encryption products were available to achieve encryption of laptops, workstations, mobile devices, and USB thumb drives in use by Children’s staff by, at least, the time of the PwC Analysis in 2008. Furthermore, while leaving these deficiencies unresolved, the Proposed Determination notes that Children’s issued unencrypted BlackBerry devices to nurses beginning in 2007 and allowed its workforce members to continue using unencrypted laptops and other mobile devices until at least April 9, 2013 despite the findings of SMS and PwC and Children’s actual knowledge about the risk of maintaining unencrypted ePHI on its devices.

Based on this evidence, OCR concluded that Children’s had “actual knowledge” of the unaddressed threats to ePHI as early as March 2007 and at least one year prior to the reported security incidents. Furthermore, OCR also found that Children’s additionally violated HIPAA by failing to implement sufficient policies and procedures governing the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of its facility, and the movement of these items within the facility prior to at least November 9, 2012. Prior to November 2012, Children’s information technology (IT) assets were inventoried and managed separately from the inventory of devices used within its Biomedical Department. Children’s IT asset policies did not apply to devices that accessed or stored ePHI that were managed by the Biomedical Department. Consequently, Children’s was unable to identify all devices to which the device and media control policy should apply prior to completing a full-scope inventory to identify all information systems containing ePHI in November 9, 2012. As Children’s did not conduct a complete inventory to identify all devices to which its IT asset policies apply to ensure that all devices were covered by its device and media control policies, the Proposed Determination concluded Children’s was out of compliance with the Security Rule at 45 C.P.R. § 164.310(d)(l).

After OCR’s investigation indicated widespread Privacy and Security Rule noncompliance by Children’s, the Proposed Determination states that OCR attempted to negotiate a resolution with Children’s through its informal resolution agreement process from approximately November 6, 2015, to August 30, 2016. When these efforts failed, OCR issued a May 10,2016 Letter of Opportunity that formally informed Children’s that since OCR had been unable to resolve its findings that Children’s violated the Privacy and Security Rules by informal means, OCR was informing Children’s of the preliminary indications of non-compliance and providing Children’s with an opportunity to submit written evidence of mitigating factors under 45 C.F.R. § 160.408 or affirmative defenses under 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 for OCR’s consideration in making a determination of a CMP pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.404. The letter stated that Children’s could also submit written evidence to support a waiver of a CMP for the indicated areas of non-compliance. Each of Children’s indicated acts of noncompliance and the potential CMP for them were described in the letter. The letter was delivered to Children’s and received by Children’s agent on May 12, 2016.

Children’s responded to OCR’s letter on or about June 9, 2016. The Proposed Determination states that OCR determined that the information and arguments submitted by Children’s in its June 9, 2016 letter did not support an affirmative defense pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.410 or a waiver of the CMP pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 160.412. Accordingly, OCR notified Children’s in its September 30, 2016 Proposed Determination of OCR’s intent to implement the $3,217,000.00 CMP and procedures for appealing this planned CMP assessment. When Children’s did not file an appeal, OCR issued the Final Determination assessing the CMP. OCR reports that Children now has paid the $3,217,000.00 CMP.

Important Lessons For Other Covered Entities & Their Leaders

The Children’s CMP and underlying circumstances provide many key lessons for other Covered Entities. Obviously, the Final Decision drives home the importance of:

Proper encryption and other security and access controls of devices and systems containing ePHI; and
Proper documentation of risk assessments, audits, breach investigations and other events, compliance analysis and conclusions taken in response, and corrective actions selected and implemented in response to these events.

Beyond the importance of documented compliance with encryption and other requirements, the Children’s CMP and its associated Proposed Determination and Final Determinations also illustrate the importance of proper behavior in response to a known or suspected breach. The Proposed Determination and Final Determination make clear that beyond the breaches uncovered in the course of the investigation, OCR’s decision to implement the CMP was influenced by, among other things:

The recurrent disregard and failure by Children to act to address the HIPAA security violations over a period of years despite both repeated notifications of its noncompliance and actual breaches resulting from these compliance deficiencies; and
The failure of Children’s to cooperate with OCR to reach a voluntary resolution agreement which might have allowed Children to resolve its liability for the breaches OCR found by paying a potentially smaller settlement payment and implementing corrective actions to OCR’s satisfaction.

About The Author

Recognized by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as a “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%/ the highest) and “Top Rated Lawyer,” with special recognition as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, the author of this uProposed Determinationate is widely known for her 28 plus years’ of work in health care, health benefit, health policy and regulatory affairs and other health industry concerns as a practicing attorney and management consultant, thought leader, author, public policy advocate and lecturer.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, current American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting, former Vice President of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, past ABA JCEB Council Representative, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Ms. Stamer’s includes nearly 30 years’ of work with a diverse range of health industry clients on an extensive range of matters.

Ms. Stamer has worked closely with health industry, managed care and insurance and other businesses and their management, employee benefit plans, governments and other organizations deal with all aspects of staffing, human resources and workforce performance management, internal controls and regulatory compliance, change management and other performance and operations management and compliance. She supports her clients both on a real-time, “on demand” basis and with longer term basis to deal with daily performance management and operations, emerging crises, strategic planning, process improvement and change management, investigations, defending litigation, audits, investigations or other enforcement challenges, government affairs and public policy.

As a core component of her work, Ms. Stamer has worked extensively throughout her career with health care providers, health plans and insurers, managed care organizations, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers, banks and other financial institutions, management services organizations, professional associations, medical staffs, accreditation agencies, auditors, technology and other vendors and service providers, and others on legal and operational compliance, risk management and compliance, public policies and regulatory affairs, contracting, payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations and matters including extensive involvement advising, representing and defending public and private hospitals and health care systems; physicians, physician organizations and medical staffs; specialty clinics and pharmacies; skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing and management services organizations; consultants; investors; technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers; and other health industry clients to establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry investigation, enforcement including insurance or other liability management and allocation; process and product development, contracting, deployment and defense; evaluation, commenting or seeking modification of regulatory guidance, and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement, and a host of other related concerns for public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, employers, and others.and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

Heavily involved in health care and health information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations innovation and a Scribe for ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with OCR for many years who has authored numerous highly-regarded works and training programs on HIPAA and other data security, privacy and use, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security and data breach and other information privacy and data security rules and concerns including policy design, drafting, administration and training; business associate and other contracting; risk assessments, audits and other risk prevention and mitigation; investigation, reporting, mitigation and resolution of known or suspected breaches, violations or other incidents; and defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR, FTC, state attorneys’ general and other federal or state agencies, other business partners, patients and others. Ms. Stamer has worked extensively with health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, their business associates, employers and other plan sponsors, banks and other financial institutions, and others on risk management and compliance with HIPAA, FACTA, trade secret and other information privacy and data security rules, including the establishment, documentation, implementation, audit and enforcement of policies, procedures, systems and safeguards, investigating and responding to known or suspected breaches, defending investigations or other actions by plaintiffs, OCR and other federal or state agencies, reporting known or suspected violations, business associate and other contracting, commenting or obtaining other clarification of guidance, training and enforcement, and a host of other related concerns. Her clients include public and private health care providers, health insurers, health plans, technology and other vendors, and others. In addition to representing and advising these organizations, she also has conducted training on Privacy & The Pandemic for the Association of State & Territorial Health Plans, as well as HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, medical confidentiality, insurance confidentiality and other privacy and data security compliance and risk management for Los Angeles County Health Department, ISSA, HIMMS, the ABA, SHRM, schools, medical societies, government and private health care and health plan organizations, their business associates, trade associations and others.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on HIPAA and other concerns by her service in the leadership of a broad range of other professional and civic organization including her involvement as the Vice Chair of the North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, Executive Director of the Coalition on Responsible Health Policy and its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children; former Board Compliance Chair and Board member of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, immediate past RPTE Representative to ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits Council Representative and current RPTE Representative to the ABA Health Law Coordinating Council, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (469) 767-8872 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as:

Leave a Comment » | data breach, data security, Doctor, Health Care, Health Care Finance, Health Care Provider, Health Plan, Health Plans, HIPAA, HIPAA Cyber Crime, Hospital, Hospital, hospitals, Medical Privacy, Physician, Privacy, Uncategorized | Tagged: breach, children's health, Children's Medical Center, Civil Monetary Penalties, civil monetary penalty, CMP, Data, Data Breach, Data Security, EPHI, Health Care, Health Plan, HIPAA, medical, Medical Privacy, mobile device, OCR, PHI, Privacy, Security, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Duty To Guard Against Malware

Green Ridge Ransomeware Breach

First Malware Settlement

Warning To All Covered Entities

For More Informational

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

SJMC Settlement

For More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

Banner Health Settlement

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

Share this:

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

Other Helpful Resources & Information

Share this:

Implications For Health Care Providers, Health Insurers & Other Businesses

For Help With Comments, Investigations Or Other Needs

Other Helpful Resources & Information

Share this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Important Information About This Communication

Share this:

For Additional Information Or Assistance

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Important Information About This Communication

Share this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

More Information

About the Author

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

All Health Care Providers & Business Associates Reminded To Conduct Documented Risk Assessments In Response To COVID-19 Operational Changes

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

With New Settlements, OCR Collections From HIPAA Covered Entities For Improperly Allowing Filming Or Other PHI Disclosures To Media Now Exceed $3 Million

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: